PARVATHI CHELLAMMA Vs. HUSSAN PILLAI MOHAMMED ABDUL KHADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are persons who were not parties to the suit, but who got themselves impleaded as defendants 8 and 9 alleging that their property. 9.85 acres in extent, was placed under the custody of the receiver, and that over that property the parties to the suit had absolutely no manner of right, possession or title. They moved the trial Court by a petition under Order 40. Rule 1 (2). C. P. C. for vacating the order of appointment of receiver in so far as it related to the item in question and also praving for redelivery of the property to them.

(2.) The learned Munsiff in and by an elaborate and well-considered order allowed the petition. The aggrieved party took up the matter in appeal. The learned District Judge after having observed:--

(3.) The reasoning given by the learned District Judge for setting aside the order that was passed by the learned Munsiff after due deliberations does not appeal to me. It is rather strange that the learned District Judge should have taken the view that the revision petitioners were not affected by the order of appointment of receiver when, without any manner of right whatsoever, the receiver took possession of the property belonging to the revision petitioners. It is precisely for the reason that they, who were not parties to the suit were adversely affected by the order of appointment of receiver, that they filed a petition for redressing their grievances by seeking redeliyery of the property. In a case like this, as observed by Va-radaraja Iyengar. J., in Chiruthakutty v. Chandukutty Nambiar. (1958 Ker LT 204)-