RANG BAHADUR SINGH Vs. BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH ALIAS CHOOTAN BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rang Bahadur Singh, the appellant, was appointed a receiver on 21-12-1950, by the learned Subordinate Judge first Court, Gaya, in a suit for maintenance by one Ramdulari Kuer, the mother of the defendants Narbadeshwar Pd. Singh and Bisweshar Pd. Singh. The suit was decreed and maintenance was allowed to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 200 per month. The sum of Rs. 2,400 which would be the total amount payable per year to the decree-holder by the judgment-debtors was to be realised to the extent of Rs. 1,800 out of their estate and the remaining amount of Rs. 600 was payable in cash in equal proportions by the two sons. This amount was, however, variable from year to year according to the needs of the decree-holder and the paying capacity of the judgment-debtors. Narbadeshwar Pd. Singh, the first son, was appointed a receiver to carry out the direction of the Court. The appointment was made in Execution Case No. 42 of 1944, which was levied by the decree-holder when her dues were not paid. It appears that Narbadeshwar Pd. Singh was not able to discharge his duties as a receiver properly and was not able to pay the dues of the decree-holder. The latter, accordingly, brought the matter to the notice of the Court now and then and, ultimately, the learned Subordinate Judge decided to appoint a third party receiver to facilitate the payment. The present receive", Rang Bahadur Singh was, accordingly, put in the place of Narbadeshwar Pd. Singh and a writ was issued to him to take charge of the estate of the judgment-debtors.

(2.) Eiseshwar Pd. Singh, judgment-debtor No. 2, filed a petition on 7-1-1951, in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, saying that the receiver had sold 150 mds. of paddy worth Rs. 3,000 and newari & straw worth Rs. 600. This was followed by a regular petition on 10-2-1951, making a reference to the previous petition to the effect that the receiver was keeping the above amount with himself in collusion with the decree-holder with the Ulterior motive of causing loss to the estate. It was alleged further that the receiver not only did not deposit the amount in Court, but, instead, brought a false case against him in the Criminal Court on the ground that his agents had removed 45 mds. of paddy and they were also planning to remove 200 bundles of straw. The learned Subdivisional Magistrate of Jehanabad,' in whose Court the complaint was filed, had the matter enquired into by the officer-in-charge, Ghosi Police station, who found the allegation to be altogether false, and the learned Subdivisional Magistrate accordingly passed an order for the prosecution of the receiver under Section 211, Penal Code.

(3.) It appears that on 9-1-1951, the decree-holder filed an application in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge alleging that although the appellant was appointed a receiver he was prevented by respondent Biseshwar Pd. Singh from taking peaceful possession of the land, and the receiver was compelled to resort to a proceeding under Section 144, Criminal P. C. The agents of the judgment-debtor No. 2 had actually looted the paddy of the bakasht land of Shankerpur Shaista-bad on 7-1-1951, from the cutchery and threatened to assault the barahil of the receiver. A prayer was, accordingly, made to initiate a proceeding for contempt of Court against him.