TMI Blog1948 (9) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 25-9-1947. The joint family property is extensive. It is said to be worth rupees fifteen lacs or so to consist of a large number of fields, some houses, cash amounting to rupees four lacs or so, jewellery, shares in joint stock companies, Govt, stock, grain, cattle, agricultural implement household utensils. Most of the moveable property is admittedly in the custody of the Court. Some movable property such as grain, household utensils, agricultural implements, cattle, a few share-certificates, a G. P. Note some jewellery is, however, not in its possession. (3) It is alleged that before his death Prahlad executed a will , in that will, he created a Trust for charitable purposes bequeathed all his interest in what was formerly the Joint f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervation of the property. (5) It is contended by Dr. Kedar that Sub-r. (2) of R. 1 of O. 40, stands in the respondents' way that by reason of that prohibition, the Court is precluded from appointing a receiver in this case. That provision runs thus: Nothing in this rule shall authorize the Court to remove from the possession or custody of property any person whom any party to the suit has not a present right so to remove. According to the appellants, they have all along been in possession of the suit property even during the lifetime of Prahlad. They say that though Prahlad was the 'karta of the family , as such, was in physical possession of the family property, they too must benefit from his actual possession. Therefore, they say ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not disturbing his possession 'pendente lite.' This particular fact makes a difference. By reason of it, the decision itself can be justified though not the wide statement of law made therein. In the present case, the appointment of a receiver does not cause the dispossession of the 'karta' of the family. Indeed a receiver has been appointed at the instance of the persons claiming to be legal representatives of the 'karta' that is because the defts. who were not in actual physical possession till the institution of the suit have now taken possession of the immoveable property. The actual decision in the 'Bombay case' is thus distinguishable on facts. (7) The appellants' learned counsel also relied on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of one another the choice rests with the party to seek one or the other. The position of a receiver appointed under O. 40, R. 1 is analogous to that of an administrator appointed under S. 247, Succession Act , therefore, there is no particular advantage in resorting to one provision in preference to the other. As the choice rests with the party concerned, it is to not right for the Court to interfere with its preference. (9) It was suggested during the arguments that since a preliminary decree for partition has already been passed, the appellants have undoubtedly interest in half the property comprised in the suit possibly they may also succeed to the remaining half of the property. Therefore, it is said that a receiver cannot be appoin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns as will be found ultimately entitled to the original plff's. share in the suit property. (11) Apart from that, it is quite obvious from the attitude taken by the appellants here that they feel very much cut up over the alleged will of Prahlad. It is thus within the range of possibility that they would even go to the length of deliberately wasting the property out of sheer annoyance, desperation or cursedness. This they should not be allowed to do so as much in their own, interest as in the interest of the legal representatives of Prahlad. I, therefore, agree with the Court below that it is just convenient to appoint a receiver over the suit property. (12) The next question then is: who should be appointed a receiver? I am clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
