the suit property was declared as evacuee property
and the same was purchased by the appellant in an auction sale as far back
as on 15.6.1964. In the year 1980, the appellant filed a suit being Civil
Suit No. 37 of 1980 before the District Judge, Thane Court seeking specific
performance of the sale of the property and possession and interim relief
of injunction restraining the defendants therein from carrying on further
construction on the suit property. The appellant further made a prayer for
appointment of Receiver. Trial court rejected to appoint receiver.
But High court appointed the receiver.
The High Court while making appointment of
the Receiver directed to take possession of the suit property.
All the
persons who were in actual possession of any part of the suit property were
continued to remain in possession. The Receiver was directed to collect
rent and compensation as the case may be from all the persons in actual
possession after verifying from them their present right to remain in
possession. The High Court further directed that the Receiver should take
suitable direction from the court if he was presented with any
particular difficulty.
Indisputably, the suit was finally disposed of on 4.2.1998. While
disposing the suit, the trial court gave liberty to the plaintiff-appellant
to move the High Court for directions for taking possession of the suit
property from the Court Receiver so appointed by the High Court.
The High Court after taking into
consideration these Court Receiver's reports, passed the impugned order
holding that the receiver shall be deemed to have been discharged after the
dismissal of the first appeal by the High Court, followed by dismissal of
the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court.
Apex court held that
In our view, when a Receiver is appointed pending suit or appeal, the
prime objective is to preserve the property by taking possession or
otherwise and to keep an account of rent and profits that may be realized
by the Receiver and to submit it before the court till the lis is finally
decided. Ordinarily the function of receivers who are appointed comes to
an end with the final decision of the case. However, even after the final
decision, the Court has the discretion to take further assistance of the
Receiver as and when the need arises. In the instant case, admittedly, the
appellants have already put the decree in execution for recovery of
possession. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Executing Court
while executing the decree may take assistance of the Receiver or by
appointing new Receiver or Commissioner for effecting delivery of
possession in accordance with law and not more than that.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error
in the impugned order passed by the High Court. The Civil Appeals are,
therefore, of no merit and are dismissed. - 2015 SC msklawreports
