CHAITANYA NAIKO Vs. KANDHINO NAIKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN what circumstances a third-party should not be appointed as Receiver is the point involved in the appeal from an order by which the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, appointed an Advocate as Receiver of the entire joint family properties in a suit for partition filed by a widowed mother against her sons and daughters.

(2.) IN December 1962 one Laxminarayan Naiko died leaving him surviving his widow the plaintiff Kandhuni Naikani, his natural born son defendant No. 1 chaitanya (alleged to be adopted son of Laxminarayan's uncle Nityananda)defendants 2, 3 and 4 his other sons and defendants 5 to 10 his daughters. The deceased Laxminarayan is said to have died leaving properties valued in the suit at Rs. 75,000.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 Chaitanya claims to have been adopted by Chitra, widow of laxminarayan's uncle Nityananda, and as such Chaitanya claims half share in the suit properties. It is said that in 1948 in settlement operations Laxminarayan put certain objections and made a statement that Chaitanya had been adopted as son of his paternal uncle Nityananda; accordingly Chaitanya was recorded and recognised as adopted son of Nityananda; and certain items of properties measuring 30 acres of land some of which were purchased by Laxminarayan were recorded in the name of Chaitanya. In 1946 Chitra, widow of Nityananda is also said to have made a statement that Chaitanya is the adopted son of her husband nityananda Chaitanya relied on the admission by Laxminarayan that he (Chaitanya) is the adopted son of Nityananda, and contends that the plaintiff is bound by such admission of her husband Laxminarayan.