Skip to content


Maddipoti Chinna Veeranna and ors. Vs. G. Narayanasawmy Naidu, Receiver, Nidadavole Estate, and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.1009
AppellantMaddipoti Chinna Veeranna and ors.
RespondentG. Narayanasawmy Naidu, Receiver, Nidadavole Estate, and ors.
Cases ReferredDunne v. Kumar Chandra Kisore
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 145 - possession proceedings--receiver, not in actual possession, whether necessary party to. - .....petitioners, the old tenants, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the new tenants to whom the receiver granted leases about the 25th august 1910. that the receiver is entitled to the rents of the lands is not disputed. it is true that in one paragraph of his affidavit the receiver says that since june 1910 he has been in possession but the rest of his affidavit showed that he had leased the lands to the new tenants who are in possession. further, we may state that mr. nagabhushanam appearing for the receiver says that his client does not claim to be himself in actual possession. we, therefore, hold that the receiver is not a proper party to these proceedings. the ruling in dunne v. kumar chandra kisore 30 cp. 593 referred to by the magistrate, has no application to the present case.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. It seems to us that no sanction ought to be granted for making the Receiver party to these proceedings, because the real dispute is as to possession between the petitioners, the old tenants, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the new tenants to whom the Receiver granted leases about the 25th August 1910. That the Receiver is entitled to the rents of the lands is not disputed. It is true that in one paragraph of his affidavit the Receiver says that since June 1910 he has been in possession but the rest of his affidavit showed that he had leased the lands to the new tenants who are in possession. Further, we may state that Mr. Nagabhushanam appearing for the Receiver says that his client does not claim to be himself in actual possession. We, therefore, hold that the Receiver is not a proper party to these proceedings. The ruling in Dunne v. Kumar Chandra Kisore 30 CP. 593 referred to by the Magistrate, has no application to the present case inasmuch as the Receiver's possession under the Court's order is not in dispute.

2. The petitions are dismissed.


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