1.This is a plaintiffs' appeal brought against an order passed by Mr. Sewa Singli, Subordinate Judge First Class, Karnal, dated 16-1-1953, refusing to appoint a receiver of a joint Hindu family property.
2. The plaintiffs, who are related to the defendants as shown in the following pedigree-table, have brought a suit for partition of the joint Hindu family property:
| | |
Vidya Wati=Asa Ram Chhajju Ram Tara Chand
(plaintiff No. 6) (adopted out) (defendant No. 1)
| | | | | | |
Anguri Ved Prakash Naresh Kumar Surinder Kumar Vijay Kumar Om Parshad Bhagwati Parshad
(daughter) (pltf. No. 1) (pltf. No. 2) (pltf. No. 3) (pltf. No. 4) (defendant No. 2) (defendant No. 3)
(minor defendant No. 4)
Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 are the minor sons of Asa Ram and plaintiff No. 5 Vidya Wati is their mother. Defendant No. 1 is the uncle of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to-4 and is the manager of the family. The suit was brought on 29-10-1952 on the allegations that a dispute had arisen between the parties and that the plaintiffs had no confidence in the manager and that the defendant was not looking after the interests of the plaintiffs and that he was wasting the property of the joint Hindu family in order to harm the interests of the plaintiffs. The value of the property as given in the plaint, according to Mr. C. L. Aggarwal, was Rs. 2,10,000/- as the value of the houses and shops and some agricultural land and mortgagee rights of Rs. 80,000/- and some ancestral business, the value of the whole being Rs. 3,85,200/-. The defendant did not admit the value of the property to be correct and raised several other pleas denying that he was wasting the property of the minors, but he also raised the plea that some of the properties were his own and that the original business had been stopped and now the business was being carried on in the name of Asa Ram Tara Chand.
3. On 25-10-1952 Vidya Wati made an application for appointment of a receiver. It was supported by an affidavit in which it was stated that the relations of the parties were strained and that defendant No. 1 was misappropriating the property of the minors and that he was manufacturing account-books and was not properly looking after the property. In reply to this the defendant denied these allegations and his denial was sup-ported by an affidavit. On this material before him the learned Judge rejected the application for appointment of a receiver, and the plaintiffs have come up in appeal to this Court. They have along with this appeal filed an affidavit in which it is stated that the monthly income of the property is Rs. 2,000/-. This affidavit though in English is sworn by Vidya Wati in Hindi which is contrary to the rules made by this Court, and it is not stated what is the source of her information that the income is Rs. 2,000/-. All that she has stated is that this is true to the best of her knowledge and belief whatever that may mean.
This is denied by an affidavit of Tara Chand also signed in Urdu which is also contrary to the rules. In this affidavit it is stated that the account-books show that the income of the property from 1951 to 31-3-1953 has been Rs. 500/- a month and not more. In regard to the marriage of Anguri Devi which was at one time the subject-matter of dispute, it was stated that the girl had been married off, but whether she was or not cannot be a point of controversy at this stage. The sole question which had to be determined by the learned Judge was whether there was sufficient ground for the appointment of a receiver. In Mulla's Civil Procedure Code at p. 1170 it is stated that the Court will not, as a general rule, appoint a receiver in suits between members of a joint family, especially where the family property consists of immovable property, put a receiver may be appointed in a suit for partition where there is a 'prima facie' case of misappropriation by the manager of the family. This is the rule which governs generally appointment of receiversin disputes between the members of joint Hindufamilies.
In the present case beyond allegations there was nothing on which the learned Judge could have based a finding in favour of there being a wastage or misappropriation. It was stated by Vidya wati that the property was being wasted which was denied by Tara Chand. The learned Judge might have gone into this matter in a greater detail, out on the evidence that was before him he, in my opinion, rightly came- to the conclusion that no case had been made out for the appointment of a receiver. I would therefore dismiss this appeal, but there will be no order as to costs.
4. Should the plaintiffs find at any stage infuture that there is misappropriation on the partof the defendant they can take such action asthey are advised by their legal advisers.