IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 FAO.No. 153 of 2003() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/04/2003 IN IA.2098/2002 IN OS.137/1990 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/4TH DEFENDANT ------------- THANKAMMA POULOSE, W/O. LATE P.V.PAULOSE AGED 63, POTTAYIL HOUSE, MEKADAMBU P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF & 2ND, 3RD, 5TH AND 6TH DEFENDANTS ------------------- 1. JACOB PAUL, THENUNKAL HOUSE, KAVALANGADU KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT ERNAKULAM DIVISION 26/97, SOBHA TAKKIS, IDAPPILLY 69-18, KOCHI-24. 2. GEORGE PAUL S/O. LATE PAILY, THENUMKAL, KAVALANGADU, NOW AT THENUNKAL HOUSE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WYNADU DISTRICT. 3. CHINNAMMA POULOSE, D/O. PAILY, MANJUMMAKUDIYIL, KEERAMPARA, CHELADU, KOTHAMANGALAM 4. LILLY SIMON, THOLATH HOUSE, CHALISSERY P.O., PALAKKADU. 5. SADHUNI JACOB, MEKKARAKUNNEL HOUSE, VILANGU P.O., KIZHAKKAMBALAM ALUVA BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS FOR R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM FOR R2 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- F.A.O.No. 153 of 2003 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Three cents along with a theater is one of the items included in the partition. A preliminary decree has already been passed. Final decree applications are pending. Though applications were moved before the court below for appointment of a Receiver, appointment of Commissioner, impleading etc., and the court below disposed of all these petitions by a common order, the present appeal is confined against the order dismissing the receiver application, i.e., I.A.No.2098 of 2002. 2. The court below found that the appellant had got only 1/6th share in the property. Though there is dispute between the parties, there is no decree for mesne profits. The whole purpose of appointment of a receiver is to prevent fraud or committing any waste, and in the absence of any convincing F.A.O.No.153 of 2003 2 evidence regarding fraud, the court did not find it expedient to appoint the receiver against which the present appeal is filed. 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as also the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that when admittedly a preliminary decree has been passed and the properties are outstanding in possession with other sharers, in order that the user of the property may not be detrimental to the other sharers, it is necessary that the court below ought to have appointed a receiver. Though this matter was posted before the Adalath to explore the possibilities of a settlement, despite efforts made, the same was not fruitful. 5. The appeal itself is of the year 2003. No interim order was passed by this Court. At this distance of time, it is not feasible or necessary to appoint a receiver. However, we direct F.A.O.No.153 of 2003 3 the court below to expedite the final decree proceedings, if the same is still pending. Subject to the above observations, the appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.