CHANDMAL Vs. PADAMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application against the order dated 28-8-1968 by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, upholding the order of the SDO Chhabra dated 27-7-1967, appointing a receiver. Plaintiffs-non-Applicants Padamchand and others filed a suit in the court of the SDO Chhabra against the defendant-applicant Chandmal under secs. 88 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, for declaration of tenancy, ejectment and possession with regard to certain Khasra numbers in all measuring 63 bighas 5 biswas, in village Dhoti, Tehsil Atru. The plaintiff-non-applicants applied for the appointment of a receiver and the SDO granted the request by his order dated 27-7-1967. The defendant-applicant went up in appeal but the appeal was rejected. Hence this revision application.

(2.) ARGUING on behalf of the applicant, learned counsel first explained the circumstances of the dispute. He said that the land was the Khatedari of one Nathulal. He had a widowed issueless daughter Kesarbai, and transferred the land to her in his life time. This Kesarbai, it was said, adopted Chandmal, defendant-applicant son of Gundarlal, a collateral of her deceased husband Gopilal on 3-1-65. Subsequently, however, on 7-2-65, she is said to have executed a will in favour of Dakhabai, daughter of her father (Nathulal)V brother Mangilal. Plaintiffs-non-applicants are the sons and daughters of Dakhabai. Kesarbai died on 9-2-65, two days after the execution of the alleged will. Learned counsel said that probate for the will had not been applied for, and the will is wholly suspect.

(3.) IN this case, the trial court passed the order only on the basis of the affidavit by the plaintiff-non-applicants that the defendant-applicant was intending to sell the property. As the defendant applicant gave an affidavit dated 8-8-67 in the R. A. A's. court, that he had no intention to sell the property, the learned R. A. A. adopted a new argument, that "permitting one party to be in possession during the pendency of the suit would violate against the rights and interests of the other party and to that extent constitutes the wastage of the disputed land". I must say that this is a very dangerous doctrine to propound If this is accepted, whenever there is a dispute, a receiver will be considered justified. He did not examine with any case the question of prima facie case and apprehended injury, which are the basic considerations for the appointment of a receiver. He disregarded even the fact regarding possession. The trial court's order itself accepted the position that the defendant-applicant had been in possession since 7-11 65. It is one of the accepted principles for the appointment of a receiver that an order appointing a receiver will not ordinarily be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a defect possession since that might cause irreparable wrong.