IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 FAO.No. 220 of 2007() --------------------- OS.135/1997 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 12 -------------- 1. KRISHNADAS, S/O.THAYYIL ACHUTHAN, 1/4307, AMRUTHAYIL THAMASUM, KARAPARAMBA CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 2. MULLATH SULOCHANA, U.K.SANKUNNI ROAD, KALATHINKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. 3. MULLATH SRIJAYANT, U.K.SANKUNNI ROAD, KALATHINKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. 4. MULLATH SIDHAN, U.K.SANKUNNI ROAD, KALATHINKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. 5. MULLATH SREEJA, U.K.SANKUNNI ROAD, KALATHINKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. 6. NARMADA, W/O.MULLATH SREENIVASAN, KALATHINKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. 7. SINDHU PRADEEP, KRISHNAPURAM, AMBATHOOR, CHENNAI- 600 053. 8. SANJITHA, VASAVA NIVAS, RAMANATHA PURAM, PUTHOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 9. SOORAJ, U.K.SANKUNNI ROAD, KALATHINKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. F.A.O.220/2007 : 2 : 10. PADMAVATHI, W/O.THAYYILKRISHNADAS, 1/4307, KARAPRAMBU CROSS ROAD, KACHERY, KOZHIKODE. 11. KRIPA, 1/4307, KARAPARAMBU CROSS ROAD, P.O.ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 & RESPONDENTS 12 TO 17 -------------------------------------------------------- 1. HEMACHANDRAN, S/O.THAYYIL MULLATH BHASKARAN, 'AYSWARYA', KALATHINKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. 2. ASHALATHA,W/O HEMACHANDRAN, AYSWARYA, KALATHINKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. 3. ROHITH, S/O HEMACHANDRAN, AYSWARYA, KALATHINKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. 4. CHANDRAMATHI, W/O.THAYYIL BHASKARAN, AYSWARYA, KALATHINKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. 5. BHAVITHA, W/O.HARSHATH, 'AYSWARYA', KALATHINKUNNU, KOZHIKODE. 6. PAKKRAN, 49, ULLAS NAGAR COLONY, KOTTOLI, KOZHIKODE. 7. P.N.ALI, S/O.KUNHIMU, 'EHASAR', P.O.MUNDUPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 8. EDAKANDY THANKAMANI, W/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, 'GLANORA', VENGERI, KOZHIKODE. 9. KONNATHODY PACHUKUTTY @ KRISHNAN, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, THALAKULATHOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 10. MANAYIL THODIKAYIL BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU PILLA, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. F.A.O.220/2007 : 3 : 11. SREELAKSHMY RAVEENDRAN, D/O.THAYYIL MULLOTH BHASKARAN, 17/28, BANK ROAD, KASABA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1TO R5 SRI.P.N.SREENIVASAN FOR R1TO R5 BY ADV.SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R.9&10 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, ALONG WITH FAO NO. 311 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- F.A.O. Nos.220 and 311 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Bhavadasan, J. Both these appeals are against the order dated 23.6.2007 in I.A.No.5499 of 2006 in O.S.No.135 of 1997, on the file of Sub Court, Kozhikode. That was an application for appointment of a receiver. 2. A preliminary decree for partition was passed in O.S.No.135 of 1997. Thereafter, a final decree application was filed. In that, the petitioners moved an application for appointment of a Receiver. 3. Before the court below, initially the petitioners has sought for the appointment of an experienced Advocate Commissioner in the final decree application for division of properties and to assess the mesne profits. Therefter, an F.A.O.Nos.220 & 311 of 2007 2 application, i.e., I.A.No.5499 of 2006, for appointment of a receiver was filed. After considering the rival claims, the court below came to the conclusion that parties may be given a chance to decide upon the question as to who can be appointed as Receiver and adjourned the case to 5.7.2007. It is the said order that is assailed in these appeals. 4. Heard both sides. Before this Court also, both sides were of the opinion that a Receiver needs to be appointed. Appellants in F.A.O.220/2007 wants a senior person, other than the 17th defendant, to be appointed as Receiver. On the other hand, appellants in F.A.O.311/2007 prefer the first appellant therein to be appointed as receiver. Thus, it is clear that parties are unable to come to a consensus about the person who could be appointed as a Receiver. In such circumstances, the only option is to appoint a third party as Receiver. According to us, a Receiver needs to be appointed. But there is no consensus among the parties regarding the person to be appointed as Receiver. Therefore, F.A.O.Nos.220 & 311 of 2007 3 the court below is directed to take up the matter again to decide the issue regarding the items for which a receiver has to be appointed and to appoint a Receiver, either from the panel of receivers or an official receiver, as the case may be, after hearing both sides. The appeals are disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.