Skip to content


Hanumayya and anr. Vs. Venkatasubbayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad23
AppellantHanumayya and anr.
RespondentVenkatasubbayya and ors.
Excerpt:
code of civil procedure - act xiv of 1882, section 603--appointment of receivers--waste or misappropriation of property as a ground for appointing a receiver. - - 1. the reason assigned by the judge for declining to appoint a receiver is that the acts complained of amount to misappropriation rather than waste, and that petitioners can hereafter institute a criminal prosecution. these are clearly not sufficient reasons. section 503 of the code of civil procedure authorises the appointment of a receiver for the preservation or better custody of property the subject of a suit......are clearly not sufficient reasons. section 503 of the code of civil procedure authorises the appointment of a receiver for the preservation or better custody of property the subject of a suit. whether property is vested or misappropriated makes no difference for the purposes of this section. the uture institution of a criminal prosecution will not enable a party to recover property that may have been misappropriated.2. we cannot support the judge's order.3. it is therefore set aside and the case remanded for disposal according to law.4. the costs hitherto incurred will abide and follow the result.
Judgment:

1. The reason assigned by the Judge for declining to appoint a receiver is that the acts complained of amount to misappropriation rather than waste, and that petitioners can hereafter institute a criminal prosecution. These are clearly not sufficient reasons. Section 503 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorises the appointment of a receiver for the preservation or better custody of property the subject of a suit. Whether property is vested or misappropriated makes no difference for the purposes of this section. The uture institution of a criminal prosecution will not enable a party to recover property that may have been misappropriated.

2. We cannot support the Judge's order.

3. It is therefore set aside and the case remanded for disposal according to law.

4. The costs hitherto incurred will abide and follow the result.


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