HIMMAT SINGH Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MADRAS High Court in T. Krishnaswamy Chetty vs. C. Thangavelu Chetty (1) had magnified the words `just and convenient' used in Order 40, Rule 1 CPC by embodying five requirements "panch SADACHAR" necessary for appointment of Receiver thus- (i) The appointment of a Receiver pending a suit is a matter resting in the discretion of the Court. (ii) The Court should not appoint a receiver except upon proof by the plaintiff that prima facie he has a very excellent chance of succeeding in the suit. (iii) Not only must the plaintiff show a case of adverse and conflicting claims to property, but, he must show some emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action and of his right he must be reasonably clear and free from doubt. the element of danger is an important consideration. (iv) An order appointing Receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a `de facto' possession since that might cause irreparable wrong. It would be different where the property is shown to be `in medio', that is to say, in the enjoyment of no one, and (v) The Court on the application made for the appointment of a Receiver, looks to the conduct of the party who makes the application and will usually refuse to interfere unless his conduct has been free from blame.

(2.) BEARING these principles in mind, I proceed to adjudicate upon the contro-versy posed before me in the instant miscellaneous appeal preferred against the order dated 22. 3. 1999 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2 Kota whereby application of the plaintiff respondent u/o. 40 R. 1 CPC was allowed and Receiver was appointed.

(3.) A look at the impugned order which runs almost in 20 pages demonstrates that the learned Court below in order to appreciate the documents on record placed reliance on Harshvardhan Singh vs. Ranveer Singh (2), wherein this Court held that an unregistered document required under law to be stamped and regis-tered can not be admitted in evidence even for collateral purposes. Matter of Harshvardhan Singh went upto Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 1997 passed following orders on 10. 11. 1997- " Leave granted on consensus. As suggested by learned counsel, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court shall stand set aside and proceedings before the trial Court to go on as before, subject to the document in question i. e. the family settlement being treated as `marked' and not `admitted' in evidence straightway. The question as to its admissibility would have to be determined at the conclusion of the suit. All other defences to the admissibility of the document are kept upon till determined by the trial Court. It is so ordered. This step disposes of the appeal. "