IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. NO.255 OF 2002, C.M.A.No.2530 of 2002 & C.M.A.No.2238 of 2002 FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Between: K. Ramanandam .... Appellant. And: M. Ananda Koteswara Rao and others ....Respondents. C.M.A.No.2530 of 2002 Between: Mylavarapu Ramanandham .... Appellant. And: Mylavarapu Ananda KoteswaraRao and 9 others ....Respondents. C.M.A.No.2238 of 2002 Between: Mylavarapu Ramanadham .... Appellant. And: P. Krishna Murthy, (Receiver) died and 4 others ....Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. NO.255 OF 2002, C.M.A.No.2530 of 2002 & C.M.A.No.2238 of 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: If the Courts are burdened with pendency and people have developed aversion towards partition suits, it is on account of the cantankerous attitude exhibited by people like the appellant herein. He filed a suit for partition as an indigent person, being OP No.34 of 1955 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet more than half a century ago. It appears that there is only one coparcener. A preliminary decree was passed way back on 13.12.1962. The appellant could have reaped the benefits under the preliminary decree, since there was hardly any resistance from the other coparcener Along with this OP No.34 of 1955, the appellant filed IA No.1793 of 1955 and got appointed two Receivers by name Sri M. Gundaiah and Sri P. Krishna Murty for administration of the suit schedule property. The receivers were required to maintain correct account of all the transactions, entrusted to them and file the same in the court once in every two months. One of the Receivers by name Sri M. Gundaiah was discharged in the year 1958 itself. The entire burden was on the other receiver. On the direction issued by the trial Court, certain items of immovable property were sold, for the purpose of satisfying, the decrees passed against the appellant in other suits, and may be other coparcener also. He had to execute about hundred sale deeds for the property that was sold and at every stage he was taking the assistance and guidance of the appellant. The appellant filed IA No.1651 of 1970 in OS No.1 of 1958 for a direction to the Receiver to deposit Rs.80,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of realization of sale proceeds. According to him, the receiver did not account for that amount. Another application, being IA No.758 of 1972 was filed seeking a direction to the receiver to deposit a sum of Rs.4,593.28 ps. Here the plea of the appellant was that the item No.2 of the ‘A’ schedule property was sold for a sum of Rs.22,500/- with an object of satisfying the decree in OS No.183 of 1956 and the liability of the appellant under the decree was only 1/3rd and there was an amount of Rs.11,250/-. His grievance was that out of the sale proceeds, only Rs.1,160/- was deposited to his credit and the receiver was under obligation to deposit a further sum of Rs.4,593/-. IA No.759 of 1972 was filed for recovery of Rs.37,361 towards arrears of maintenance. The receiver opposed the application stating that he submitted every item of income and expenditure in respect of the subject matter for scrutiny by the Court and the appellant did not raise any objections at any point of time. He further explained the details of the deposits made in the court. Through separate orders dated 16.2.2002, the trial court dismissed the three applications C.M.A.No.255 of 2002, C.M.A.No 2230 of 2002 and C.M.A. No 2238 of 2002 are filed against orders in IA Nos.758 of 1972 and IA No.759 of 1972 and IA No.1651 of 1970 respectively. Sri Potti Venkata Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is the duty of the receiver to account for the amounts received by him, particularly the sale proceeds, and there was serious default on the part of the 1st respondent. He also contends that his client was put to serious loss and hardship on account of the non deposit of amounts mentioned in the applications. The receiver died during the pendency of proceedings before the trial court. His Legal Representatives are brought on record. None appears for them. The circumstances, under which the applications filed, have been mentioned above, may be in a precise manner. The appellant seems to have felt that it is the duty of the Court to administer his assets and to look after his welfare and he need not take any steps even for himself. His family incurred debts and the creditors filed four suits against him. Virtually pleading bankruptcy, he filed O.S.No.1 of 1958 as indigent person. Not only one, but two receivers were appointed at his instance. The very fact that no proceedings came to be initiated by the defendants in the suit discloses that it is the appellant, that was instrumental for quite a large number of proceedings and for creating complications therein. Not being able to put up with the behaviour and attitude of the appellant, one of the receivers got himself discharged. The other receiver has to execute nearly hundreds of sale deeds, collect the amounts as consideration and satisfy the large number of decrees. He had to deposit the balance of sum into the Court with the appropriate statement of accounts. In addition to that he was burdened with the acts of paying the amounts, the appellant and other persons representing the sharers from time to time towards, maintenance etc. It is not in dispute that the receiver submitted the statements to the Court from time to time particularly whenever items of immovable property were sold on the directions of the Court. In case, there existed any discrepancies, it was always open to the appellant to point out the same. It is rather surprising to note that the appellant has treated the receiver as a principal adversary for the sin of the latter, in sparing his time and energy to administer the properties even while the appellant was enjoying the benefit thereof, without sharing a fraction of responsibility. The receiver was at pains to explain the items of expenditure as well as the conduct of the petitioner for the past several decades. This Court takes serious exception to the attitude exhibited by the appellant. On account of his irresponsible behaviour, the proceedings have been pending for the past several decades. The trial court recorded cogent reasons while dismissing the applications. No factual or legal error is pointed out. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are dismissed with costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) in each, to be paid to the legal representatives of the receiver. The trial Court is directed to verify as to whether any final decree proceedings, with reference to OS No.1 of 1958 are still pending. If it is found any such proceedings are pending, steps shall be taken to close them within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It is further directed that the trial court shall not entertain any application filed by the appellant, unless he files proof of payment of costs awarded herein. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Date:28.08.2009. Gk. THE HON’BLE SRI JUTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. NO.255 OF 2002, C.M.A.No.2530 of 2002 & C.M.A.No.2238 of 2002 JUDGMENT Date:28.08.2009. Gk.