Decided on October 21,1955



- (1.)THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble THE Chief Justice, THEse are applications by defendants 1 and 2 to 6 in O.S. No. 100 of 1954 for leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court dated 11-4-1955. In a suit for partition between the, members of a zamindari family, who are parties to the appeal, an apphestion was made in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for the appointment of a Receiver. THE learned Subordinate Judge, while refusing to appoint a Receiver for taking possession S. C. C. M, P. Nos. 5759 & 5760 of 1955. 21st October 1955. of the entire properties of the family, appointed a Receiver for a limited purpose, namely, to take proper steps in getting ryotwari pattas for all the kamatham lands of the family. THE plaintiffs filed C. M. A. No. 51 of 1955 against that order, while the defendants filed cross-objections. In our order, we agreed with the learned Judge that a Receiver need not be appointed in respect of the entire properties. To safeguard the interests of the plaintiff, we gave further directions to the Receiver in slight modification of the order of the Subordinate Judge. Shortly stated, we directed the Receiver appointed by the Subordinate Judge to sell the produce and deposit the proceeds into court, allowing the defendants at the same time to draw out their admitted share of the proceeds so deposited. Subsequently, the appeal was posted to be ipoken to and practically with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on either side and, indeed, on the suggestions of one or the other, we made further modifications. THEse applications are filed to prefer an appeal against the said order. From the aforesaid facts, it is manifest that we did not purport to decide finally the rights of the parties. THE order was only an interlocutory order giving certain directions pending disposal of the partition suit now pending in the court below. THE question is whether an appeal lies to the Supreme Court against that order under Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution of India, which reads:
An appeal shall He to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies:"

(2.)THE Madras High Court consisting of Horwill and Balakrishna AyyarJJ. in Rayarappen Nayanar v. Madhavi Amma held that an order removing or appointing a receiver does not affect at all the rights of the parties as it is merely an order making provision for the due preservation of the estate during the pendency of the suit. In that view, they held that the order, not being a final order, no appeal lay against that to the Federal Court. Mukherjea J. as he then was defined the word 'judgment' in Sec. 205 (1)of. the Government of India Act, 1935, in Mohammad Amin Bros. v. THE Dominion of India as follows : " In English Courts the word ' judgment' is used in the same sense as a decree in the Civil .Procedure Code and it means the declaration or final determination of the rights of the parties in the matter brought before the Court......... According to the definition given in the Civil Procedure. Code a judgment is the statement of reasons given by a Judge on which a decree or order is based. If the order which is made in this case is an interlocutory order, the judgment must necessarily be held to be an interlocutory judgment and the collocation of the words 'judgment decree or final order' in section 205 (1), Government of India Act, makes it clear that no appeal is provided for against" an interlocutory judgment or order". Subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court in Mangaraju v. Varahalamma . held that an order made in an appeal filed against the order directing the appointment of a Receiver was not a final order within the meaning of Art. 133 of the Constitution of India on the ground that that order did not finally decide the rights of the parties. Following the aforesaid .three decisions, we hold that the order now in question is neither a judgment nor a final order within the meaning of Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the applications are not maintainable. THE applications are, therefore, dismissed with costs. T. R. R. Petitions dismissed.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.