JAGMOHAN SONI Vs. KAMLESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 8 -1 -2010, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has appointed a receiver for collecting the rent of four shops which were allegedly running in the property in dispute, the Defendant -Appellant has approached this Court.

(2.) ACCORDING to Plaintiff -Respondent No. 1, Kamlesh, the property in dispute consists of a haveli, along with four shops and a garage. According to the Plaintiff, in 1957, his father, Durga Lal Soni, bought the said property. His father expired on 3 -10 -1987. Since the property is an ancestral one, the Plaintiff claimed that he along with Defendant -Appellant, and other Defendants, inherited the property of his father. He further claimed that he has 1/7th share in the said property. According to him, four shops situated within the haveli have been rented out. However, it is only the Appellant who is collecting the entire rent, approximately a sum of Rs. 37,200/ -. The Plaintiff further claimed that he has a right to 1/7th share of the rented amount so collected by the Appellant. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed an application for appointment of receiver.

(3.) MR . J.P. Goyal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, has vehemently contended that the remedy of appointing of receiver is the harshest remedy available. Therefore, it should be exercised in the rarest of rare case. Secondly, since the learned trial court has already restrained the Appellant from alienating the shops, there is no need to appoint a receiver for collecting the rental amount. In order to buttress his contention, the learned Counsel has relied upon the case of Ram Ikwali Singh v. Sheo Pujan Singh : AIR 1997 (Pat) 164.