THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.389 OF 2010 DT.08.06.2010 (PER THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO) Between: C.Satyanarayana ……………..Appellant Vs. B.Naresh and ‘43’ others. ……………..Respondents. JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, in I.A.No.1194 of 2007 in O.S.No.377 of 2004, dated 17.04.2010. The defendant No.1 is the appellant herein. The first respondent herein filed the suit against respondent Nos.1 to 11 herein (defendant Nos.1 to 11 therein) for partition of the schedule mentioned property, which is a house, admeasuring 1317 square yards bearing Municipal Nos.1-4- 910 to 921, situated at Musheerabad, Hyderabad, seeking allotment of 1/3rd share and separate possession of the said share. In the suit, the first respondent herein filed I.A.No.1194 of 2007 seeking appointment of a Receiver for the purpose of receiving rents and all other benefits from all other respondents relating to the suit schedule property. After making an enquiry into the said application, the learned trial court appointed a Receiver for the said purpose, solely on the ground that by virtue of such appointment, no prejudice will be caused to the appellant or any other parties, who are parties to the suit, as the money will be to the credit of the suit. We have heard Smt.Maamu Vani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri V.S.S.Pavaki, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The sole basis for claiming share by the first respondent/plaintiff is that Narasingrao, who is the father of the first respondent is the adopted son of late Ramulu and China Manemma. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this court that Narsingrao filed O.S.No.84 of 1990 claiming to be the adopted son of Ramulu for partition of the plaint schedule property on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge, against respondent Nos.3 to 8 herein. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed by holding that Narsingrao is not an adopted son. The said fact is not disputed by the first respondent/plaintiff. The fist respondent took a plea in the present suit that the decree in O.S.No.84 of 1990 is liable to be set aside, since it was obtained by the defendants therein by playing fraud and mis- representation. The appellant could be able to make out a strong case in his favour to the effect that there are no chances of success of the first respondent/plaintiff in the present suit. However, even assuming that the first respondent has a share in the schedule mentioned property, the crucial question that arises is as to whether it is just and convenient to appoint a Receiver. Admittedly, the house mentioned in the schedule was already demolished and it was converted into residential and commercial flats. The appellant filed an additional affidavit stating that except one flat obtained by him, the remaining were either sold or leased out. Therefore, all the properties are in the hands of third parties. The appointment of Receiver for the purpose of collecting rents and other profits from the persons, who are in occupation of several flats, results in much hardship to such persons. The learned trial court is not at all justified in arriving at the opinion that by appointing a Receiver, no prejudice will be caused to the appellant or the respondents, who are parties to the suit. The learned trial court did not consider the issue of appointment of a Receiver in the light of the proposition that the remedy is a harsh one, which shall be resorted to exceptionally. If the first respondent plaintiff has any right over the schedule property, he can recover the profits by proving his entitlement to the share in the property as claimed. Appointing Receiver by the learned trial court, in our view, causes much hardship and inconvenience to the parties, who are in possession of several flats of the schedule mentioned properties. We see no valid grounds in the order of the learned trial court, appointing a Receiver in the suit, wherein the other respondents are not altogether strangers to the schedule mentioned properties and more over, they are in possession of the same. The order impugned passed by the learned trial court is un- sustainable and is liable to be set aside. The order dated 17.04.2010 passed by the trial court in I.A.No.1194 of 2007 in O.S.No.377 of 2004 appointing a Receiver is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., _______________ R.KANTHA RAO J., Dt.08.06.2010 tjs