whether after the disposal of the appeal, the Court Receiver stands discharged or whether he continues in his office till an order of discharge is passed by the Court? -when a Receiver is appointed pending suit or appeal, the prime objective is to preserve the property by taking possession or otherwise and to keep an account of rent and profits that may be realized by the Receiver and to submit it before the court till the lis is finally decided. Ordinarily the function of receivers who are appointed comes to an end with the final decision of the case. However, even after the final decision, the Court has the discretion to take further assistance of the Receiver as and when the need arises. In the instant case, admittedly, the appellants have already put the decree in execution for recovery of possession. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Executing Court while executing the decree may take assistance of the Receiver or by appointing new Receiver or Commissioner for effecting delivery of possession in accordance with law and not more than that.=2015 SC msklawreports.

     

the suit property was  declared  as  evacuee  property
and the same was purchased by the appellant in an auction sale as  far  back
as on 15.6.1964.  In the year 1980, the appellant filed a suit  being  Civil
Suit No. 37 of 1980 before the District Judge, Thane Court seeking  specific
performance of the sale of the property and possession  and  interim  relief
of injunction restraining the defendants therein from  carrying  on  further
construction on the suit property. The appellant further made a  prayer  for
appointment of Receiver. Trial court rejected to appoint receiver. 
But High court appointed the receiver.
The High Court while making  appointment  of
the Receiver directed to take possession  of  the  suit  property. 
 All  the
persons who were in actual possession of any part of the suit property  were
continued to remain in possession.  The Receiver  was  directed  to  collect
rent and compensation as the case may be from  all  the  persons  in  actual
possession after verifying from  them  their  present  right  to  remain  in
possession. The High Court further directed that the  Receiver  should  take
suitable  direction  from  the  court  if  he  was  presented  with      any
particular difficulty.
 Indisputably, the suit was finally disposed  of  on  4.2.1998.   While
disposing the suit, the trial court gave liberty to the  plaintiff-appellant
to move the High Court for directions for  taking  possession  of  the  suit
property from the Court Receiver so appointed by the High Court.
The  High  Court  after  taking  into
consideration these Court Receiver's  reports,  passed  the  impugned  order
holding that the receiver shall be deemed to have been discharged after  the
dismissal of the first appeal by the High Court, followed  by  dismissal  of
the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court.
Apex court held that
In our view, when a Receiver is appointed pending suit or appeal,  the
prime objective  is  to  preserve  the  property  by  taking  possession  or
otherwise and to keep an account of rent and profits that  may  be  realized
by the Receiver and to submit it before the court till the  lis  is  finally
decided.  Ordinarily the function of receivers who are  appointed  comes  to
an end with the final decision of the case.  However, even after  the  final
decision, the Court has the discretion to take  further  assistance  of  the
Receiver as and when the need arises.  In the instant case, admittedly,  the
appellants have  already  put  the  decree  in  execution  for  recovery  of
possession.  We are, therefore, of the  opinion  that  the  Executing  Court
while executing the decree  may  take  assistance  of  the  Receiver  or  by
appointing  new  Receiver  or  Commissioner  for   effecting   delivery   of
possession in accordance with law and not more than that.

 In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find  any  error
in the impugned order passed by the High  Court.   The  Civil  Appeals  are,
therefore, of no merit and are dismissed. - 2015 SC msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)