JANE JAMES Vs. JESSY JOHNSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in a suit for partition is the appellant. The plaintiff is her sister. In answer to the suit, the defendant propounded a Will of her late father. The plaintiff disputed it. The court below has sent the document for expert opinion from the Forensic Science Laboratory. That order is under challenge in OP(C) No. 151 of 2012. The plaint schedule property is admittedly in the possession of a third party, who is stated to be a tenant. The court below, therefore, appointed a Receiver to collect the rent and to manage the property. That is challenged in FAO No. 17 of 2012 fundamentally on the ground that the defendant did not have appropriate opportunity to file objections and to contest the application for appointment of Receiver.

(2.) HAVING considered the aforesaid facts, the rival submissions, the materials on record and the quality of the findings rendered by the court below, we are of the view that there is no error of jurisdiction or any illegality in the court below having concluded that it is just and confident on facts to appoint a Receiver. We are of the view that it will only be in the interest of both sides to have the Receiver continue. In so far as the reference of the document for the opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory is concerned, there is no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error. If there is any objection to the Forensic Science Laboratory's report, it is a matter to be taken up before the trial Judge during trial. It is not a matter, in which we can interfere in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.