BHAGABAT DAS Vs. BHABI BEWA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision arises out of an order appointing Defendant No. 1 Bhabi Bewa as receiver in Title Suit No. 218 of 1964 filed by the Plaintiff Bhagabat Das claiming to be adopted son of one Bhagaban Das against his adoptive mother Defendant No. 1 Bhabi Bewa for, among other reliefs, setting aside a decree in T.S. No. 300 of 1954 on the ground of the alleged negligence of the Court guardian in conducting the said suit, for declaration of his title, partition and for other incidental reliefs; Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are respectively the son and the widow of the brother of the Plaintiff's father Bhagaban Das and are impleaded as parties in the suit as members of the joint family.

(2.) THE matter arose thus: On an application filed by the mother Defendant No. 1 Bhabi Bewa for appointment of the receiver to harvest the standing paddy crops upon the suit land and to give her the legitimate share to which she is entitled, the learned Munsif, Kendrapara by an order dated November 2,1965 found that it was just and convenient to appoint a receiver to harvest the crops fro the suit land; he directed that after harvest, the receiver would give - /4/ - annas share out of the same to the mother Defendant No. 1 and -/8/ - annas share out of the same to Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and keep the remaining -/4/ - annas share in the custody of the receiver; the Plaintiff would be entitled to that - /4/ - annas share in case he succeeds, otherwise it would go to Defendant No. 1. As regards the person to be appointed as receiver, the learned Munsif directed both parties to suggest names of the persons whom they wished to be appointed as receiver within three days from the said date (2 -11 -1965); accordingly on November 4, 1965, the Sarpanch was appointed as receiver on the said application of Defendant No. 1.

(3.) THE Plaintiff -Petitioner's point is that the learned Subordinate Judge, while dismissing the Plaintiff's miscellaneous Appeal acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity in appointing the Defendant No. 1 as receiver. Plaintiff's appeal was against the order dated November 2, 1965 by which receiver was appointed. As regards the personnel of the receiver, the Sarpanch as appointed as receiver on the application for appointment 'of receiver by Defendant No. 1 herself. Defendant No. 1 did not file any cross -objection or appeal from the order by which the Sarpanch was appointed as receiver. What the learned Subordinate Judge was to decide in the said miscellaneous Appeal No. 33 of 1965 was whether or at all a receiver should have been appointed and whether it was just and convenient to appoint a receiver.