RAM PRATAP Vs. LAKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 21-1-1955 whereby the order of the trial court regarding the appointment of a receiver over the land in dispute was set aside.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. The principles that govern the appointment of a receiver have been stated by Lord Cranworth L. C. as follows : - "the receiver, if appointed in this case must be appointed on the principle on which the Court of Chancery acts, of preserving property pending the litigation which is to decide the right of the litigant parties. In such cases the Court must,of necessity, exercise a discretion as to whether it will or will not take possession of the property by its officer. Where, indeed, the property is, as it were, in medio, in the enjoyment of no one, the Court can hardly do wrong in taking possession It is the common interest of all parties that the Court should prevent a scramble. But where the object of the plaintiff is to assert a right to property of which the defendant is in the enjoyment the case is necessarily involved in further questions. The Court, by taking possession at the instance of the plaintiff, may be doing a wrong to the defendant,in soma cases an irreparable wrong. If the plaintiff should eventually fail in establishing his right against the defendant the Court may, by its interim interference, have caused mischief to the defendant for which the subsequent restoration of the property may afford no adequate compensation. " These principles which are followed by the English Court of Equity have been adopted as safe guides by Courts in India in these matters. The discretion conferred by this rule is not to be exercised in an arbitrary or unregulated manner but cautiously, judicially and according to legal principles. A receiver cannot be appointed merely because it is expedient or convenient to one of the parties to do so, or because it will do no harm. There aught to exist substantial grounds for interfering with the possession of a bona fide person by the appointment of a receiver. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has cited AIR 1914 Calcutta 439, 1929 Lahore 495, 1942 Sindh 60, and 1938 Madras 730, which are all clearly distinguishable from the present case. In all these cases one co-owner instituted a suit for partition against the others and it was held that in such a case a receiver may appointed although no waste or malversation by the co-owner in possession is proved. It was also held that where one co-owner occupies the whole property and excludes other co-owners from their shares in profits of property a receiver may be appointed. The nature of the present suit is positively not that of a partition suit between the co-owners. This is a suit by the tenants against land-holders for recovery of possession on the basis of wrongful ejectment. The learned Additional Commissioner has in his elaborate and well-reasoned judgment given cogent arguments for not considering it just and convenient to appoint a receiver. WE find ourselves in argument with this view. The appeal is hereby rejected. .