RASI DEI Vs. BIKAL MAHARANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 3 in a partition suit is the appellant from an order of the learned subordinate Judge Cuttack, whereby he appointed an outsider as receiver in respect of the suit agricultural lands.

(2.) IN May, 1963, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree for partition of their respective shares. The total area of the suit lands is said to be 5. 656 acres. The defendants are said to be members of a joint Hindu family. The 11 plaintiffs are each purchaser for a specific portion of property from different members of the defdts' family. The total acquisition of the plaintiffs by purchase is said to be 3 acres. On the plaintiffs' application for receiver the learned Subordinate Judge appointed one Sri Dibakar Jena of Souri Gram Punchayet as receiver. Hence this misc. appeal filed by defdt No. 3.

(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge did not give any reasons for his appointing the receiver. His order, which is cryptic, is this: "26. 4-1-64. Parties file haziras. Heard lawyers at length on the Receiver matter. Let Sri Dibakar Jena of Souri Gram Puchayet be appointed as a receiver in respect of the agricultural lands till the disposal of the suit. Let a copy of order be communicated to him. Receiver is to furnish accounts in the first week of March every year. Petitioner to supply a list of agricultural lands. Misc. case is allowed on contest with no cost. " in my opinion, on the facts as pleaded by the plaintiffs there is no prima facie case for appointment of a receiver. The plaintiff's case pleaded in paragraph 15 of the plaint is that even though the plaintiffs and the defendants are in possession of specific lands according to their convenience more or less to the extent of the land to which they are entitled, there has not been any partition by metes and bounds of the lands covered by the disputed khata between the plaintiffs and the defendants according to the extent of lands to which they are entitled. So admittedly the defendants are in possession of their respective shares. Therefore by appointing a receiver that defendants who are in possession will necessarily be dispossessed.