VAITLA SATYANARAYANA Vs. VAITLA SATYAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Pattabhiramaiah was possessed of certain lands in West Godavary District. He dieu on 4-3-1979 and was survived by five sons, one daughter and a wife, Srimathi Subbamma. He executed a will in favour of Smt. Subbamma who, by virtue of the bequest, became the owner of the properties which are in dispute. She died on 1-2-1983. After her death, her grand sons plaintiffs 1 to 6 and two sons, plaintiffs 7 and 8 filed the suit out of which these appeals arise, for partition of the suit properties. It is alleged that pur. porting to act under a registered power of attorney said to have been executed by late Subbamma in favour of the 1st defendant one of her sons, the suit properties have been settled in favour of the third defendant, the daughter of the 1st defendant, by him under five settlement deeds. The third defendant, it is stated, has disposed of about Ac, 25-36 cents out of the lands settled in her favour. The general power of attorney (Ex. B. 10) is said to have been executed by Smt. Subbamma in favour of the first defendant on 22-3-1981. Thereafter, between 1981 and 1986 the third defendant sold away the properties in favour of different persons. The said suit was filed on 11-6-1986. The plaintiff filed four interlocutory applications for appointment of receiver to take possession of the suit properties and manage the same. All the four interlocutory applications were disposed of together. We are concerned with the orders passed in three applications. Defendants 1 and 3 filed C.M.A. No. 1315/87 against the orders passed in LA 1326/87; defendants 37 to 40, alienees of lands from the third defendant filed C.MA. No 1301 of 1987 and defendant No. 36 another alienee of land from 3rd defendant filed C.M.A. No. 5 of 1988. As they raised common question of fact and law, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the trial court has appointed receiver on the grounds that the general power of attorney Ex. B. 10 was doubtful and that the properties were sold away by the 3rd defendant in hurry without any reasonable cause which do not constitute justifiable grounds under Order 40 Rule 1 C.P.C.

(3.) Sri Ella Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondents, supports the order on the ground that as the property was being sold away by the third defendant the learned Judge rightly appointed the receiver to preserve the property.