BENOY KRISHNA MUKHERJEE Vs. SATISH CHANDRA GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from three consolidated orders of the High Court, Calcutta, which varied orders of the District Judge of Hooghly by discharging so much of them as ordered a receiver to be appointed pendente lite of certain properties in dispute included in "Class C." The suit had been brought against the Mohunt of the temple of Tarakeswar, alleging his unfitness for his office, and praying for his removal, and for a declaration that certain lands, claimed to be his as lands were truly debaters lands belonging to the temple, with other relief. The District Judge made interlocutory orders or a receiver of three classes of property. Those as to which his receivership order was discharged had been in the Mohunt's possession and enjoyment for a considerable number of years, and were alleged by him in some eases to have passed to him under the will of his predecessor , who had acquired them as his property, and in others to have been purchased by himself out of personal offerings made to him by pilgrims and others in recognition of acts of service to them. The suit, so far as their Lordships have been informed, though its prosecution has been unaccountably delayed, is still awaiting trial.

(2.) On an interim application for a receivership such as this, the Court has to consider whether special interference with the possession of a defendant is required, there being a well founded fear that the property in question will be dissipated, or that other irreparable mischief may be done unless the Court gives its protection, Such an order is discretionary, and the discretion is, in the first instance, that of the Court in which the suit itself is pending, When, as in this case, the order of that Court is altered on appeal it becomes necessary to consider whether the Court below had before it the evidence required to support such an order and considered it in accordance with the principles on which judicial discretion must be exercised. If the Court of review rightly concludes that proper discretion was not In Indian practice in Indian practice the word review has acquired a technical meaning, but lord summer is here using the expression "court of review "as being synonymous with an appellate court. used below, it is free to exercise its own discretion in the matter.

(3.) There were undoubtedly in this case allegations, supported to some extent by the evidence which was given before the trial Judge, that in various ways there was danger of loss or injury to the properties in question, if they remained in the unrestricted control of the Mohunt. He was alleged to have abandoned his office, leaving the temple and the properties in question without proper direction and management; to have exposed the lands to sale by neglecting to pay the rents when due, and to have entered into an improper bargain, by which the claims made against him in the action were to be compromised. On all these subjects a denial of the charges was given on his side and was supported by evidence.