KOZHIKKOT PUTHIYA KOVILAGATH; PATINHARAKETTU THAVAZHIYIL; KUTTIMBATTI THAMBURATTI S SON MANAVEDAN ALIAS UNNI THAMBURAN AVERGAL Vs. PKMANAVEDAN ALIAS CHERIATHAN RAJA AVERGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of Pandrang Row, J., in A.A.O. No. 70 of 1936 confirming the order of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Calicut dismissing an application for the appointment of an interim receiver pending disposal of O.S. No. 29 of 1935.

(2.) The suit is by a junior member of Patinhafakettu Tavazhi of Pudia Kovilagam for the removal of the managers of the tavazhi appointed under a karar of 1914. Pending the suit this application was made for the appointment of a receiver for the management of the properties of the tavazhi. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application, holding that it was not competent for the Court to appoint an interim receiver in a case of this kind. Our learned brother Pandrang Row, J., differed from the. learned Subordinate Judge in his opinion on this point and held that it was open to the Court, when circumstances require, to appoint an interim receiver in cases of this kind. We agree with our learned brother in his opinion that, in suits, for the removal of a karnavan or a manager appointed under a family karar, a receiver can be appointed during the pendency of the suit if a proper case is made out. The question therefore in this case is whether sufficient cause has been shown for the appointment of a receiver. Our learned brother, after observing: Mere charges of mismanagement and fraud would not be sufficient. They must be established prima facie before the appointment of an interim receiver is made.

(3.) Concludes as follows: In this particular case it cannot be said that these charges have been established prima facie at this stage.