NARAYAN CHANDRA SAHU Vs. ABHIMANYU SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order of the court below appointing a third party receiver in respect of A 0.43 decimals of land in the Chandbali town out of the entire suit property. The Tahsildar, Chandbali has been appointed as the receiver of the said property and he has been authorised to collect rent from the tenants in the different houses and rooms on the said plot of land from the Month of June, 1979 and to deposit the same in the Nizarat of the court below at his convenience under Intimation to that court every Month.

(2.) The suit between the parties is a suit for partition of the joint family properties. Undisputedly, the defendant No. 1, the appellant herein, is occupying a house on the said plot and is staying there with his family. It is also not disputed that some tenants have been inducted by the appellant in the other houses and room on the said plot of land and that the appellant has been collecting rent from the said tenants.

(3.) In the petition under Order 40, Rule 1, C. P. C. in the court below it was alleged by the respondent that the appellant was not maintaining the said houses properly and that he was misappropriating the entire monthly rent of Rs. 860/-colleoted by him from the tenants. The parries at first examined witnesses and adduced documentary evidence to buttress their respective cases on the above matter. Ultimately, the court below by its order dated 3-5-79 directed the Tahsildar, Chandbali to hold a local inspection personally to ascertain the actual facts and the amount of rent which was being realised by the appellant from the tenants, and to submit his report to that effect The Tahasildar, Chandabali by his report dated 13-6-79 reported that the appellant was collecting only Rs. 440/-towards house rent from the different tenants in the houses and rooms on the said plot of land as stated by the appellant and not Rs, 860/- as alleged by the respondent. He also mentioned in that report that the rent collected by the appellant appeared to him to be reasonable in view of the conditions of the said houses; and that the houses were being repaired annually by the appellant. As the appellant admittedly is in possession of a house on the said plot of land and is living there with his family members, he had inducted the tenants in the other houses and rooms on that plot and till late was realising rent from the said tenants and repairing those houses regularly, the court below was not justified in appointing a third party as receiver of that plot of land during the pendency of the partition suit between the parlies, as that would cause unnecessary inconvenience, worry and embarrassment to the appellant, not called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it just and proper to appoint the appellant, defendant No. 1 in the suit, as receiver of the said property.