BH V RAMARAJU Vs. BH RAMAKRISHNAMRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram, rejected the appellant's petition for appointment of a Receiver for taking possession of the plaint schedule properties and to manage the same and to deposit the yield in the Court, in I.A.No.237 of 1993 in O.S.No.81 of 1990, by an order passed on 5-1-1994, which is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) The appellant's petition for appointment of a Receiver contained an allegation that the respondents had been misusing the schedule properties which were in thier possession, and had been committing acts of waste in order to cause wrongful loss to the appellant. The respondents were digging pits and had been interfering with the boundary bunds. It is further alleged that the respondents had been pocketing the yield realised from the suit schedule properties. It is further alleged that the 3rd respondent was a close associate and friend of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and that he had been encouraging them to misuse the possession of the property. Further, according to the appellant, it was no longer safe to allow the property to remain in the ppssession of the respondents, and therefore it was necessary, according to the appellant, in the interest of justice to appoint a Receiver to take possession of the suit schedule properties and to manage the same until the disposal of the suit.

(3.) The respondent No.1 filed a counter, which was adopted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and stated that the plaint schedule properties which originally belonged to respondent. No.1 and his wife were sold away to respondent No.3 under a registered sale deed in March, 1990 for a valuable consideration, by virtue of which item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties had been in the possession and enjoyment of respondent No.3 since then. It is further stated that the respondent No.1 did not acquire any movable or immovable property by way of ancestral property. Item No.3 of the plaint schedule properties was the self-acquired property of respondent No.1, which was also sold to respondent No3.