Skip to content


Welds Vs. Khetter Mohun Dutt - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR8Cal719
AppellantWelds
RespondentKhetter Mohun Dutt
Excerpt:
power of manager under section 243 of act viii of 1859 - notice of enhancement--civil procedure code (act x of 1877), section 503. - .....of the property, the collection of the rents and profits thereof, the application and disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of instruments in writing, as the owner himself has, or such of those powers as the court thinks fit.every receiver so appointed shall (e) give such security (if any) as the court thinks fit duly to account for what he shall receive in respect of the property,receiver's liabilities.(f) pass his accounts at such periods and in such form as the court directs,(g) pay the balance due from him thereon as the court directs, and(h) be responsible for any loss occasioned to the property by his wilful default or gross negligence.nothing in this section authorizes the court to remove from the possession or custody of property under attachment any.....
Judgment:

Prinsep, J.

1. The plaintiff, as a manager appointed under Section 243 of Act VIII of 1859, has sued for rent at an enhanced rate after service of notice of enhancement under the Rent Law. The objection taken has throughout been as to his power as a manager to issue such notice of enhancement. The Munsif properly held, that 'the Court that appoints this manager has no greater powers than those which the statute-law confers on it, so that the manager himself cannot possess more powers than this.' The Munsif accordingly held, that the plaintiff had no authority to issue the notice of enhancement. The District Judge, in appeal, considered that the manager stands exactly in the same position as a gomashta or administrator. In this view of the law he held, under the authority of two cases which apply to gomashtas, that the manager had rightly exercised his powers. It appears to us that the view taken by the Munsif is the correct view. A manager under Section 243 is, in our opinion, appointed merely to collect rents and other receipts and profits of the land; in fact, to carry on the existing state of affairs as the proprietor himself had been doing. We observe that, under the present law, Section 5031 of Act X of 1877, higher powers are conferred on him; but so far as under the terms of the law under which he acted, we think that he exceeded his powers. We, therefore, set aside the decree of the, lower Appellate Court, and restore that of the first Court. The defendant will receive his costs in this Court and in the lower Appellate Court.

1[Section 503: Whenever it appears to the Court to be necessary for the realization, preservation or better custody or management of any property, moveable or immoveable, the subject of a suit, or under attachment, the Court may by order.

Power of Court to appoint receivers.

(a) appoint a receiver of such property, and, if need be.

(b) remove the person in whose possession or custody the property may be from the possession or custody thereof;

(c) commit the same to the custody or management of such receiver; and

(d) grant to such receiver such fee or commission on the rents and profits of the property by way of remuneration, and all such powers as to bringing and defending suits, and for the realization, management, protection, preservation and improvement of the property, the collection of the rents and profits thereof, the application and disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of instruments in writing, as the owner himself has, or such of those powers as the Court thinks fit.

Every receiver so appointed shall (e) give such security (if any) as the Court thinks fit duly to account for what he shall receive in respect of the property,

Receiver's liabilities.

(f) pass his accounts at such periods and in such form as the Court directs,

(g) pay the balance due from him thereon as the Court directs, and

(h) be responsible for any loss occasioned to the property by his wilful default or gross negligence.

Nothing in this section authorizes the Court to remove from the possession or custody of property under attachment any person whom the parties to the suit, or some or one of them, have or has, not a present right so to remove.]


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