RAM EKBALI SINGH Vs. SHEO PUJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs - appellants' application for appointment of receiver in a suit for partition having been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Siwan, the appellants seek an order by this Court for appointment of receiver.

(2.) Admittedly, a small portion of suit property only stands jointly in the name of appellants-defendants-respondents Nos. 1 to 5 situated in the village Dumrakala in the district of Siwan. The appellants are more interested in appointment of receiver in respect of properties situated in West Bengal and other properties which are claimed to be ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants-respondents Nos. 1 and 6 situated in the district of West Dinajpur in West Bengal. The properties standing in the name of respondents Nos. 1 and 6 in West Bengal were mentioned in Schedules 3 to 5 of the plaint and it is claimed by the respondents to be their exclusive property. The contesting defendants had no objection for the partition of the properties mentioned in Schedule Nos. 1 and 2 situated in Siwan. It is stated that defendant No. 6 is not a member of the joint family, who has 1/2 share in Schedules 3 to 5 properties. It is alleged by respondents defendants- lst set that defendant No. 6 had transferred his 1/2 share in the property mentioned in Schedule No. 3 by registered sale deed in favour of defendants- 1st set.

(3.) The question for consideration is whether the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to grant of equitable relief for appointment of receiver when their interest in Schedule Nos. 3 to 5 properties is seriously in dispute. There is no averment that the plaintiffs ever claimed or were given any share from the usufructs of properties situated in West Bengal standing in the name of defendants Nos. 1 and 6 jointly. The court at first instance did not find it expedient having regard to the circumstances of the case, that a receiver should be appointed. As held by this Court in Kamal Chaudhary v. Rajendra Chaudhary, AIR 1976 Patna 366, that the opinion of the trial Court in the matter of appointment of receiver is of great weight and a party, who, in appeal, attacks the exercise of that discretion, should show that the discretion has been improperly exercised.