Skip to content


K.P.K. Pattinharakettu Vs. P.K. Manavedan Alias Cheriathan Raja Avergal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in166Ind.Cas.112
AppellantK.P.K. Pattinharakettu
RespondentP.K. Manavedan Alias Cheriathan Raja Avergal and ors.
Excerpt:
malabar law - karnavan--suit for removal--power of court to appoint interim receiver--duty to give opportunity to plaintiff to give prima facie evidence of mismanagement or fraud. - .....subordinate judge of south malabar at calicut dismissing an application for the appointment of an interim receiver pending disposal of o.s. no. 29 of 1935.2. the suit is by a junior member, of patinharakettu tavazhi of pudia kovilagam for the removal of the manager of the tavazhi appointed under a karar of 1914. pending the suit this application was made for the appointment of a receiver for the management of the properties of the tavazhi. the learned subordinate judge dismissed the application, holding that it was not competent for the court to appoint interim receiver in a case of this kind. our learned brother pandrang row, j., differed from the learned subordinate judge in. his opinion on this point and held it was open to the court, when circumstances require to appointed an.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal against the order of Pandrang Row, J., in A.A.O. No. 70 of 1936, confirming the order of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Calicut dismissing an application for the appointment of an interim Receiver pending disposal of O.S. No. 29 of 1935.

2. The suit is by a junior member, of Patinharakettu Tavazhi of Pudia Kovilagam for the removal of the manager of the tavazhi appointed under a karar of 1914. Pending the suit this application was made for the appointment of a Receiver for the management of the properties of the tavazhi. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application, holding that it was not competent for the Court to appoint interim Receiver in a case of this kind. Our learned brother Pandrang Row, J., differed from the learned Subordinate Judge in. His opinion on this point and held it was open to the Court, when circumstances require to appointed an interim Receiver incases of this kind. We agree with our learned brother in his opinion that, in suits, for the removal of a karanavan or a manager appointed Under a family karar a Receiver can be appointed during the pendency of the suit if a proper case is made out. The question, therefore, in this case is whether sufficient cause his been shown for the appointment of a Receiver. Our learned brother, after observing.

Mere charges of mismanagement and fraud would not be sufficient. They must be established prima facie before the appointment of an interim Receiver is made.

4. Concludes as follows:

In this particular case it cannot be said that those charges have been established prima facie at this stage.

5. As the learned Subordinate Judge held that the petition itself was not competent, he made no enquiry at all to ascertain whether the plaintiff could prima facie establish the charges and whether it was just and convenient in the circumstances of the case to appoint a Receiver. That appears to be the reason why no attempt was made by the plaintiff to establish the charges referred to in the plaint by adducing such evidence as was absolutely necessary for the purpose of the petition by affidavit or otherwise. If the plaintiff is able to show sufficient cause for the appointment of a Receiver by adducing such evidence it would certainly be competent for the Court to appoint a Receiver, and we are of the opinion that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to do so. As such an opportunity has not been given and as we do not think it proper to dispose of the petition on the materials on record, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of our learned brother and of the Court below and remand the petition to Subordinate Judge for trial and. disposal according to law in the light of the observations in this judgment. Till the disposal of this petition the order made by this Court on May 7 last in C.M.P. No. 2085 of 1936 will continue to be in force. Costs of this petition in this Court and in the Court below will abide and follow the result.


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