K VIJAYARAJAN Vs. D K KALAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this Appeal is whether an Administration Suit, in which the relief prayed for is to appoint an Administrator cum Receiver for the properties of a living person for the purpose of distributing the proceeds of his assets among his creditors including the plaintiff, is maintainable before the civil court.

(2.) The plaintiff claims to be a creditor of the first defendant to the tune of Rs. 8 lakhs. The first defendant, C.K. Kalavathy, is a Hindu. She was running a press under the name and style "Kalanilayam Krishnan Nair Memorial Press" and other business concerns. The plaintiff contended that he advanced amounts to the first defendant for the purpose of her business. On settlement of accounts, it was agreed by the first defendant to pay Rs. 8 lakhs to the plaintiff and Exhibit A 19 deed was executed by the first defendant. It is stated in the plaint that the first defendant indulged in activities to defeat the rights of her creditors, namely, plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6. Plaint A schedule properties are the assets of the first defendant. The debts due from the first defendant to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 are shown in plaint B schedule. The plaintiff prayed to appoint an Administrator cum Receiver to take over the administration of the properties of the first defendant, to sell the same and distribute the proceeds among the creditors. It is relevant to point out that there is no averment in the plaint that the first defendant is an insolvent or that her assets are not sufficient to pay off her debts.

(3.) The first defendant contended that an Administration suit in respect of the assets of a living person is not maintainable. She also denied any transaction between her and the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. The 2nd defendant, The South Indian Bank Limited, also contended that the Administration suit is not maintainable. The 2nd defendant bank obtained a decree against the first defendant for realization of money due to the Bank and execution proceedings were taken. The third defendant contended that he is a creditor of the first defendant and that the suit was filed as a result of collusion between the plaintiff and the first defendant.