KEWRIBAI Vs. DULARINBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Section 115 Code of Code of Civil Procedure the applicants/ Defendants seek to challenge the correctness and validity of the order dated 17 -11 -95 passed in Civil Suit No. 6 -A/90 by the learned Civil Judge, Class I, Mungeli, granting Plaintiff's application filed under Order 40, Rule 1 Code of Code of Civil Procedure appointing a receiver, confirmed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, link Court at Mungeli, in Misc. Appeal No. 11/95, by order dated 12 -12 -95.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are that one Nanku was owner of the property. The said Nanku had two sons Umedi and Asharam. Under the partition between Umedi and Asharam, certain lands came in possession of Umedi. According to the Plaintiff, on the death of Umedi, his widow Erawati (since deceased after the institution of the suit) and daughters Dularin and Kewri succeeded to the property. The Plaintiff filed the suit in the year 1990, inter alia, pleading that violating her possession in the property, her mother Erawati and sister Kewribai have surreptitiously sold the property under a sham and bogus sale deed in favour of Defendants Nos. 3 to 5. It would be necessary to note that on a application filed by the non -applicant before the S.D.M. under Section 145 Cr. P.C. the property was attached and receivers were appointed. On objection by applicants Nos. 1 and 2 the said receivers were removed and the S.D.M. directed that another receiver be appointed. Probably that order was not executed and another receiver could not be appointed. Ultimately, the proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P.C. culminated in favour of the present applicants and possession was delivered to them. The order was challenged by the present Plaintiff but she was unsuccessful. Possession of the property was delivered to the present applicants some where in the year 1994. The Plaintiff/non -applicant filed the application for appointement of receiver on 10 -11 -95. The application was replied by the present applicants and they contended that they were in possession of the property, they have cultivated the land and have sown paddy crop. It is also necessary to note that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings before the S.D.M., in the present suit, on 25 -8 -92 the present applicants had filed their written statement. In para 14 of the written statement, they have stated that because receiver has been appointed on the application of the Plaintiff, the property was not properly maintained.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 17 -11 -95, the Defendants preferred Misc. Appeal before the District Judge who was pleased to dismiss the same. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Defendants/applicants have filed this revision petition.