SHANTI DEVI Vs. HUKUM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Shanti Devi widow of Brahamdutt and others have filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.1995 passed by, learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

(3.) The present appellant Sm. Shanti Devi and another moved an application under Sec. 229-D of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the learned trial Court for the appointment of Receiver. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties a passed an order on 13.7.1995 that the appointment of the Receiver can be made but the fact should be ascertained as to who will be a person who will have no prejudice against either of the parties. For this decision the case was fixed for 20.7.1995 but before the date fixed i.e. 20.7. 1995 Hukum Chand preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division. The learned Additional Commissioner, after hearing the partial allowed the appeal with the observation that no Receiver can be appointed in a joint holding. Since the property in question is recorde in the name of Brahmadutt, deceased and the defendants no. 2 to 4 are married daughters of the deceased Brahmadutt whereas Hukum Chand is brother of Brahmadutt. Both Hukum Chand and defendants No. 2 to 4 are contesting the case on the basis of different Wills said to have been executed by the deceased. The observation of the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut is well founded because the claims of the defendants No. 2 to 4 and Hukum Chand are yet to be decided on the basis of Wills so it is too early to appoint a Receiver of the property which is jointly recorded in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi and the opposite-party. Moreso, the learned trial court has yet not passed a final order for the appointment of the Receiver. The order dated 13.7.1995 clearly shows that the final date for the appointment of the Receiver is fixed 20.7.1995. The steps against the order dated 13.7.95 were pre-matured and were not needed unless the trial court finished the proceedings relating to under Sec. 229-D of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act pending before the trial court.