MANNE KRISHNA VENI Vs. RANGISETTI PAVAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 7 to 11 in O.S. 63 of 2001, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, filed this C.M.A., aggrieved by the Order, dated 20-7-2004, in I.A. No. 1157 of 2002 filed therein.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 3 filed the suit for partition, and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Broadly stated, the plaint averments are that their father late Trimurthulu, and the fourth respondent (Defendant No. 1) are brothers, and when their father was acting detrimental to their interest, their maternal grandfather got issued a notice in the year 1984, calling upon their father, to partition the suit schedule properties, and that no partition was effected, despite such demand. It was pleaded that, with the issuance of a notice in the year 1984, there was severance of status, and any alienations made, or acts taken by their father and the first defendant, were not binding on them. The suit schedule properties comprise of, mostly agricultural lands, some of which, are said to be in possession of tenants. They also filed I.A. 1157 of 2002, under Order 40, Rule 1 C.P.C., for appointment of a Receiver. Respondents 5 to 14, and the appellants herein are implanted as being the alienees of the suit schedule properties.

(3.) The fourth respondent filed a written statement in the suit, and a counter affidavit to the I.A., narrating the circumstances under which, various items of properties came to be sold. The appellants herein resisted the application, by stating that the sales in their favour, were made by 4th respondent and the father of the respondents 1 to 3, for valuable consideration, and for genuine necessities of the family, and that the sales are not vitiated, in any manner. Taking into account, the contentions put forward by the parties, the trial Court appointed a receiver, in respect of all the suit schedule properties, through the order under appeal.