THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2939 OF 2000 21st August 2009 Between: 1. Somu Venkata Ramana, S/o.Subba Rao, 40 years, Cultivation, R/o.S.Timmapuram, Prathipadu DMC, East Godavari District. And two others. …APPELLANTS AND 1. Uggina Nagaratnam, W/o.Pentayya @ Adeyya, 40 years, R/o.Krishnavaram Village, Peddapuram DMC, E.G. District. And one other. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2939 of 2000 JUDGMENT: The respondents filed O.S.No.16 of 2000 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, against the appellants for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of an extent of 1 ½ acres. They have also filed I.A.No.161 of 2000 under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for appointment of a Receiver. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court passed an order dated 25.08.2000, refusing to appoint Receiver, but directing that appellants 1 and 2, who are in possession of an extent of Ac.1.00, shall deposit Rs.5,000/- per year and that the third appellant shall deposit Rs.3,700/- per year, on or before 30th January of every year. The appellants challenge the said order. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. The suit itself was for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Unless and until the title of the respondents is declared, the enjoyment of the land by the appellants cannot be said to be without basis. Further, the respondents can protect their rights by seeking a relief of mesne profits or damages. Appointment of a Receiver in case of this nature would have led to several complications. Requiring the appellants to deposit the amounts, even before the right of the respondents declared, cannot be sustained under law. While admitting the appeal, an interim order was passed by this Court on 17.10.2000. The suit itself is ripe for hearing. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The trial Court is directed to decide the matter, as early as possible and it shall be open for the respondents to seek the relief of mesne profits in the light of rejection of the I.A. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 21st August 2009 RRB