Case: Nalangora Inasu Pylyth Vs. S.T. Varee and Others

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.1. This appeal is against an order appointing receiver in the following circumstances. A suit had been filed by the respondents as members of the church of the east in India in their representative capacity for an injunction that the election which was to have been held on December 9, 1962 should not be held. An application for interim injunction however, was rejected and the election was held on December 9, 1962. In or about 1963 the respondents amended the plaint with an additional prayer for a declaration that the elections held on December 9, 1962 were invalid. They also impleaded defendants Nos. 15, 16 and 19. It may be mentioned here that according to the constitution of the Church four Central Trustees are elected and of the four one had died before he took charge and that is why only three persons namely defendants Nos. 15, 16 and 19, who were the Central Trustees were made parties. On February 12, 1964 the appellant made an application for appointment of a receiver and for directions to the receiver to take charge of the properties of the Church. This application was granted on February 19, 1965 and the Court appointed two advocates receivers. Against appointment of the receiver the appellant filed an appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Trichur. The Subordinate Judge vacated the order appointing the receiver. The respondent went in revision to the High Court. The High Court reversed the order of the appellate Court and confirmed that of the trial Court with the result that the direction to appoint the two receivers and to take charge of the properties was restored. As against that order this appeal has been filed.2. It is alleged that according to the constitution of the Church elections have to be held every three years and accordingly new trustees were elected in 1966. The validity of this election, however, is not admitted by the respondents. Be that as it may, a petition was filed by the appellants in the trial Court that since nothing has been alleged against the new trustees the order appointing the receivers should be set aside and the properties of the Church handed over to the new trustees. The trial Court dismissed that petition, as against which a revision petition was filed in the High Court. In that revision petition the High Court was of the view that there was no error of jurisdiction. Accordingly while dismissing it, it further directed that :The dismissal of the revision petition will not in any way affect the rights of the newly elected trustees to move an application in the trial Court for getting possession of the properties from the receiver.This order was passed on December 13, 1967 against which no appeal has been filed in this Court. In view of this order the trial Court while dismissing the suit of the respondents passed the following order :The receivers appointed in this case who took charge at the fag end of the trial will continue as there is already a direction from the High Court that the new trustees con seek for possession form the receivers by satisfying the Court that they are validly elected trustees.It appears to us that this direction by the trial Court was made pursuant of the directions of the High Court dated December 13, 1967 to which we have referred earlier. An appeal against the dismissal of the suit was filed before the Subordinate Judge of Trichur who allowed the appeal. The order in that appeal is in the following terms :In the result, the appeal is allowed the judgment and decree of the lower court so far as it is against the defendants is hereby set aside and the suit is dismissed in toto. In the circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their costs throughout. In view of the direction of the High Court referred to in the lower court judgment, the receivers will continue.3. The reference to the directions of the High Court referred to in this order is the order made by the trial Court in conformity with order of the High Court dated December 13, 1967. Thereafter the respondents filed a second appeal against the dismissal of their suit in the High Court which we are informed is pending in that court.4. Now it is clear to us from the above proceedings that when once the suit is dismissed by the Sub-Judge the order appointing the receivers will automatically get discharged. But in this case because of the order of the High Court dated December 13, 1967 whether that was properly understood by the trial Court directed the retention of the receivers which direction was maintained by the first appellant Court while allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit. Whatever proceedings have to be taken in respect of the retention or removal of the receivers will have to be taken elsewhere. In so far as this appeal is concerned it has become infructuous because the suit itself in which the receivers were appointed is dismissed and there is no separate order passed by the High Court in the second appeal which is pending before that Court to continue the receivers.

Decision:
0[ds]3. The reference to the directions of the High Court referred to in this order is the order made by the trial Court in conformity with order of the High Court dated December 13, 1967. Thereafter the respondents filed a second appeal against the dismissal of their suit in the High Court which we are informed is pending in that court.4. Now it is clear to us from the above proceedings that when once the suit is dismissed by thethe order appointing the receivers will automatically get discharged. But in this case because of the order of the High Court dated December 13, 1967 whether that was properly understood by the trial Court directed the retention of the receivers which direction was maintained by the first appellant Court while allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit. Whatever proceedings have to be taken in respect of the retention or removal of the receivers will have to be taken elsewhere. In so far as this appeal is concerned it has become infructuous because the suit itself in which the receivers were appointed is dismissed and there is no separate order passed by the High Court in the second appeal which is pending before that Court to continue the receivers.