ICHHABATI MOHANTY Vs. BISHNU CHARAN PAITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) From one Rajalaxmi, the admitted owner, the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 and the defendants 1 and 2 purchased the same item of property by two successive sale deeds. Purchase by the defendants was dated 10-2-1976 and that by the plaintiff was dated 14-2-1977. The opposite party No. 1 instituted Title Suit No. 81 of 1977 on 23-6-1977 against the petitioners as defendants praying for permanent injunction. In that suit, the plaintiff was appointed as receiver on 22-12-1977. The trial court directed:-

(2.) There is no dispute that in the order appointing Bishnu Charan Paital, the present opposite party No. 1, as receiver in Title Suit No. 81/77, the court had directed that he must render accounts. The order by which the receiver was appointed clearly indicated that the appointment was conterminous with the suit. As has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Hiralal Patni v. Loonkaran Sethiya, AIR 1962 SC 21, if a receiver is appointed in a suit until judgment, the appointment is brought to an end by the judgment in the action. The stand taken by the plaintiff and the pro forma defendants in their written statement in Title Suit No. 123 of 1980 that the defendant No. 1 of that suit who was the plaintiff in the earlier suit was continuing in possession as receiver has, therefore, no force in law. Though in law the appointment as receiver could not continue beyond the date of the judgment in the suit, the receiver had maintained that he was continuing in possession qua receiver even till 1-5-1981 and did not claim any independent right in himself. In opposition to the prayer for rendition of accounts, the receiver, however, took an inconsistent stand and pleaded that his accountability, if any, had terminated with the disposal of the suit. In Title Suit No. 81/77, the plaintiff-receiver lost and title was found in the defendants 1 and 2. The possession of the plaintiff and the pro forma defendants was found to be that of trespassers. When the plaintiff Bishnu Charan was appointed as receiver, the pro forma defendants had no more possession and it must be assumed that those trespassers were kept away from the property and possession remained with Bishnu Charan (receiver): only. The receiver had no independent title to the property and when he was appointed as receiver, it must be assumed that the court took over possession of the property and made it over to him qua receiver. The receiver held the property for the ultimate rightful owner. Therefore, in the written statement and the objection filed in the subsequent suit, the receiver had not taken the stand of claiming an independent right to possession and had maintained that he as receiver was in possession. It has been held by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Thota Seshayya v. Madabhushi Vedanta Narasimhacharyulu, AIR 1955 Mad 252 (at p. 257):--

(3.) Mr. B. H. Mohanty for the receiver-opposite party placed reliance on some observations of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy, AIR 1957 SC 314. I do not think the observations in Lakshmi Reddy's case support the contention of the counsel for the receiver that unless there be a decree for recovery of possession, the receiver cannot be asked to deliver possession. The receiver, being an officer of the court without any other claim personally for him, cannot be heard to take a different stand and he must be amenable to directions of the court. Once the learned trials Judge found that the defendants 1 and 2 were the real owners, the possession of the receiver enured to their benefit and the trial count was, therefore, within its jurisdiction to require the receiver to deliver possession.