CHENNURU NARAYANA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by Venkatesam, J. The material facts are not in controversy and may be shortly stated as follows : In a suit instituted in forma pauperis one Narayana Reddy sought recovery of his half share in the properties mentioned in Schedules ' A ' and ' B ' appended to the plaint. He impleaded his minor son and wife as defendants in the suit. He valued the plaint claim at Rs. 60,100. The Court-fee payable on the plaint came to Rs. 2,628-11-0. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 entered into a compromise whereunder it was provided that the 2nd defendant should pay the plaintiff Rs. 500 a year for his maintenance and that a charge was to be created for the payment of the said amount on one of the items in suit. It was further agreed that the plaintiff should pay the Government the Court-fee payable on the plaint. The Court passed a decree in terms of the memorandum of compromise filed by the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2.

(2.) On behalf of the State Government, the District Collector, Nellore, took out execution against Narayana Reddy, the plaintiff, for realising the amount of Court-fee by attachment of a portion of the decree amount. He prayed for the appointment of a receiver " to realise the maintenance due for the plaintiff as and when it accrues and remit at least a portion thereof (i.e., in excess of any requirement, for plaintiff's sustenance) in discharge of the arrears due to Government from the plaintiff". In his counter to the execution petition., the plaintiff contended that the prayer for the appointment of a receiver to realise the amount payable under the maintenance decree was not maintainable. The trial Judge appointed a receiver to recover the full amount of future maintenance payable to the plaintiff, out of which he directed the receiver to pay Rs. 360 to the plaintiff and to appropriate the balance after meeting the costs of execution, towards the Court-fees due to the Government.

(3.) Before the executing Court, it was agreed that what was payable to the plaintiff under the compromise decree was ' maintenance '. On this assumption, the only question which now arises for decision is whether a receiver can be appointed in respect of property which cannot be attached and sold.