DHOKAL SINGH Vs. RIDHMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendants under Order XLIII Rule 1 Clause (c) C. P. C. from the order of the Civil Judge, Balotra, dated 10th November, 1952, appointing a receiver of their jagir.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that the plaintiff-respondents brought a monetary suit against the appellants for Rs. 15,000/ -. THE suit was filed on 30. 10. 52. On the same day the plaintiffs presented an application in the trial court saying that their claim involved a large sum, that the defendants' jagir was likely to be resumed very soon because of the enactment of the Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. that if the jagir would be so resumed the realisation of the decree would not only be difficult but impossible, that the very purpose of bringing the suit would be defeated and therefore it was prayed that a receiver should be appointed for realising the income of the jagir and keep it in the custody of the court till the decision of the suit. One of the plaintiffs viz. Ridmal filed an affidavit in support of the application. THErein it was further mentioned that the defendants had transferred their jeep to their relative. Notice of this application was given to the defendants and 8th November, 1952, was fixed for hearing. That day the second plaintiff Nihal Chand presented another application saying that defendant No. 1 had become old and he had handed over the management of the jagir to his son, defendant No. 2, that defendant No. 2 was spendthrift, that he was wasting the income of the jagir and was intent upon defeating the plaintiff's decree. THE court was, therefore, requested again to appoint a receiver.

(3.) IF is a fundamental right of every person that he must remain in possession of his property and manage i in his own way He should not be deprived of its management at the instance of a simple creditor simply because he files a suit and requested as a plaintiff that he would be able to satisfy his claim easily from the defendant's property if a receiver is appointed. There must be very strong and special reasons for the court to appoint a receiver in such a case.