THAKURANI CHAUHANIJI Vs. RAM DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revisions arise out of a single appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 30. 11. 55 and will be disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) PUT briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiff Shrimati Thakurani Chauhaniji, wife of Th. Ganpat Singh filed a suit against the defendant Ram Dev in the court of the Assistant Collector Jaipur on 13. 10. 55 for recovery of possession over the land in dispute with the allegations that till Svt. 2010 the land was in personal cultivation of the Jagirdar who had employed one Bhura and Ramdeo defendant as his servant for cultivation on wages of 4 mds. of grain per month, that in Svt. 2010 the Jagirdar gave the land in dispute in Hawala to the plaintiff through a patta which was executed in Smt. 2007, that the plaintiff also engaged Bhura and Ramdeo as her servants, that Bhura and Ramdeo executed an agreement to that effect but that in Sept. 1955 the defendant took over wrongful possession in the capacity of a trespasser and was preventing the plaintiff and her other servants from attending to the crop which was standing on the land in dispute and had prevented the plaintiff from taking possession of the land as well. The plaintiff therefore prayed for a decree for the recovery of possession of the land in dispute against the defendant. Simultaneously with this plaint, an application was presented on behalf of the plaintiff praying for appointment of a receiver in respect of the standing kharif crop on the land in dispute on the ground that it was likely to be removed and taken away by the defendant which would cause irreparable loss to her. The learned trial court passed the following order : - "on going through the documents and affidavit, it appears that Ramdeo defendant has taken possession of the standing crops and is not allowing the plaintiff to supervise it, that he was engaged as a servant but is now behaving like a master and is bent upon depriving the plaintiff of the fruits of the harvest. Therefore under Order 38 C. P. C. the standing crop over the land in dispute be attached through Naib Tehsildar Govindgarh who should be asked to take possession over it in the capacity of a receiver. A notice be issued to the defendant to show cause against attachment before judgment. " The defendant appeared before the trial court on 31st Oct. , 1955, and objected to the interim order on the ground that he had been in possession of the land in dispute since long and that the plaintiff had filed the suit with wrong allegations Towards the end of his application, he however stated that, if necessary, a security may be taken from him for the attached crop which should however be restored to his possession. On 3rd Nov. , 1955, after examining the allegations in the plaint and the objections raised by the defendants, the trial court confirmed its order regarding the attachment of the crop and appointment of a receiver. The defendant went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, Jaipur. He came to the conclusion that the affidavit filed by the plaintiff contained only vague allegations, that no specific instance whereby any apprehensions of damage or waste to the property may be presumed were shown to exist in the case It was also observed by the learned Additional Commissioner that the trial court did not exercise its discretion properly in appointing a receiver. But strangely enough even in the face of this finding, instead of setting aside this order, the learned Additional Commissioner refused to interfere with it on the ground "as the receiver has already been appointed. I do not think it proper to interfere with the said order. " It however throught it proper to modify the order and direct that the defendant on furnishing adequate security to the extent of the value of the standing crop as appraised by the lower court be given possession of the land and every crop that is raised by him during the pendency of the suit be dealt with in a similar manner. Both the parties have come up in revision against this order before us.