SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OFKISTNA Vs. KOMARAGIRI JANARDHANA RAO; CHAMARTHI VENKATA HANUMANTHA RAO; NANDURI BHIMARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These suits arise out of certain appointments to karnamships made by the Court Receiver of the Nidadavole Estate and reported to. the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 16 of Act II of 1894 (Vide Ex. P. Q. and R. dated 9-3-1910). These appointments have to be made by the "proprietor" of the estate. The term proprietor is denned in Section 4 of the Act, and includes any person who is in lawful management of the estates otherwise than as agent or servant of the proprietor or as mortgagee or lessee.

(2.) The first question for determination is whether the Receiver of the Nidadavole estate comes within this definition. Both the Lower Courts have answered this question in the affirmative : and in our opinion rightly, subject to certain remarks which we shall come to presently.

(3.) The powers of a Receiver appointed by a civil court under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (as in the present case) are entirely conditioned by the terms of his appointment, subject to any subsequent modification by the Court under which he holds the appointment. Clause (d) of the rule gives the Court complete discretion as to the powers to be conferred on the Receiver and the Court may limit his powers in any way it thinks fit. But where the powers conferred amount to general powers of management, the effect of Section 4 of Act II of 1894 would appear to be to attach to the Receiver the special powers conferred on a proprietor by the Act, and subject to any restrictions arising out of the terms of his appointment, there can, we thin, be no question that I.e. should be regarded as a proprietor within the meaning of the Act.