Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XL, r. 1

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XL, r. 1-Appointment of Receiver-Consideration : whether it is just and convenient to appoint Receiver-Suit not for mesne profits nor for damages nor for compensation for use and occupation but merely for declaration that plaintiffs were owners of land-Appointment of Receiver, held, rightly refused. The only consideration laid down in rule 1 of Order XL, C. P. C. is : whether it is just and convenient to appoint a Receiver or not. The main reason given by the plaintiffs for the appointment of a Receiver was that it would be other wise difficult for them to estimate the income of the property. The suit, however, was for declaration that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land. The defendants on the other hand were in possession of land for a number of years. In such circumstances since the suit was neither for mesne profits nor for damages nor for compensation for use and occupation of the land, it was held, that the trial Court was right in rejecting the prayer for appointment of a Receiver. A. H. Pirzada for Appellants. Dates of hearing : 12th and 14th March 1969.   JUDGMENT This is an appeal under Order XLIII, rule 1, C. P. C. from an order of the trial Court refusing to appoint a receiver. It was argued for two days in which counsel for the parties narrated complicated facts covering a period of about twenty years. 2. It will be proper to briefly refer to the chequered history of this litigation in order to understand the full implications of the contentions of the parties. The dispute relates to agricultural land which is situated in Delis 1 and 2 Dim of Sinjoro Taluka and District Sanghar. It is not clear as to what is the precise area of the land in which the appellants are interested. Counsel for the appellants said that it was about 300 acres. Parumal who is said to be the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2 applied to the Custodian Mr. Akbar Hussain in 1950 for a declaration that he was a non-evacuee person and stated in support of his claim that 500 acres of land belonged to him individually as self-acquired property and that he was childless. The object obviously was to avoid the…