Skip to content


Arunachellam Chettiar Vs. Manicka Varaher Desikar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in3Ind.Cas.437
AppellantArunachellam Chettiar
RespondentManicka Varaher Desikar and ors.
Cases ReferredGhanashyam Misser v. Gobinda Moni Dasi
Excerpt:
mortgage decree - injunction restraining sale of property--civil procedure code (act vix of 1882), section 503--appointment of receiver. - - now, should it be eventually found that the appellant is not entitled to sell the property, it may well be that he is entitled, in execution of his decree, to proceed against, the income of the property receivable by the judgment-debtor, and the only way in which the income can be preserved would be by the appointment of a receiver......by injunction from selling the mortgaged property in execution of his decree. now, he wants a receiver appointed, to be in charge of the mortgaged property and to place the income therefrom in charge of the court, as long as the order stopping the sale of the mortgaged property continues. now, should it be eventually found that the appellant is not entitled to sell the property, it may well be that he is entitled, in execution of his decree, to proceed against, the income of the property receivable by the judgment-debtor, and the only way in which the income can be preserved would be by the appointment of a receiver. there is nothing in the appointment of a receiver for this purpose inconsistent with the injunction which has been granted, and in the circumstances of this case we.....
Judgment:

1. The appellant has been restrained by injunction from selling the mortgaged property in execution of his decree. Now, he wants a Receiver appointed, to be in charge of the mortgaged property and to place the income therefrom in charge of the Court, as long as the order stopping the sale of the mortgaged property continues. Now, should it be eventually found that the appellant is not entitled to sell the property, it may well be that he is entitled, in execution of his decree, to proceed against, the income of the property receivable by the judgment-debtor, and the only way in which the income can be preserved would be by the appointment of a Receiver. There is nothing in the appointment of a Receiver for this purpose inconsistent with the injunction which has been granted, and in the circumstances of this case we think it just that a Receiver should be appointed. The fact that the decree is a decree in a mortgage suit is no bar to the appointment of a Receiver vide Ghanashyam Misser v. Gobinda Moni Dasi 7 C.W.N. 452. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and direct him to appoint a Receiver. The respondent would pay the costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //