B. CHITHRA Vs. JYOTHISHKUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal and the original petition arise out of an order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Attingal, appointing respondents 1 and 2 as party receivers and a subsequent order passed by the trial court declining to remove them from the receivership and to appoint the appellant/petitioner as the receiver. The brief facts of the case are as follows: -

(2.) THE appellant as the plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 125 of 2008 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Attingal for partition of the plaint A schedule properties consisting of 5 items into 4 equal shares and allotment of one such share to her. The plaint A schedule properties belonged to late Bhaskaran, husband of the third defendant and father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. A preliminary decree for partition was passed on 28.6.2012 directing division of the plaint schedule property into 3 equal shares and allotment of one such share each to the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The trial court held that the third defendant who had murdered her husband is disqualified under section 25 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 from inheriting the properties of late Bhaskaran. Aggrieved by the said finding, defendants 1 to 3 filed R.F.A. No. 888 of 2012 in this Court. The said appeal was heard and allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment delivered on 5.2.2014. This Court held that the third defendant/third appellant is entitled to one -fourth share in the properties of her husband. The preliminary decree for partition passed by the trial court was accordingly modified and a preliminary decree for partition of plaint A schedule items 1 to 5 into four equal shares and allotment of one such share each to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 was passed. The plaintiff has filed I.A. No. 349 of 2014 to pass a final decree for partition and the said application is pending.

(3.) THE defendants resisted the application by filing a counter affidavit dated 28.3.2014, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P2 along with O.P.(C) No. 2039 of 2014. As regards the plaintiff's averment that the monthly income from plaint A schedule properties will be not less than Rs. 40,000/ -, the defendants contended in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that the annual income will not be even Rs. 4,000/ -. They also contended that the plaintiff who is a teacher earning Rs. 50,000/ - per mensem as salary, is not entitled to seek the appointment of a receiver. They also contended that she possesses other immovable properties.