THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.M.A. No. 1280 of 2011 Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) This C.M.A. is directed against the order dated 03.11.2011 passed by the XI Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kakinada, allowing the application in I.A. No. 133 of 2011 in O.S. No. 86 of 2006, filed by respondent No.1 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner/Receiver to take possession of the plaint schedule properties, manage them and deposit the profits to the credit of the suit during its pendency. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in a suit for partition appointment of Advocate Commissioner/Receiver cannot be appointed, but the Court below committed an error in allowing the application filed by respondent No.1 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner/Receiver. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Chelikam Rajamma v. Padileti Venkataswami Reddy[1]. He further submitted that since the Court below passed order of interim injunction in I.A. No. 3463 of 2006 restraining the appellants and other respondents from alienating the suit schedule properties, the interest of respondent No.1 stood well protected, and having regard to the fact that all these years, the appellants have been managing the properties and maintaining the accounts properly, there was no necessity for respondent No.1 to file the present application, much less for the Court below to allow the same. Hence, he prayed that the order under appeal be set aside and the C.M.A. be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the order under appeal. He submitted that since the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the counter to the present application, have themselves admitted that they have sold certain properties to discharge the family debts of the joint family, and if such alienations are allowed to take place, the interest of respondent No.1 in the suit schedule properties would be affected, the Court below to protect his interest has passed the order under appeal appointing Advocate Commissioner/Receiver, and no exception can be taken thereto particularly when respondent Nos. 2 to 4 expressed no objection to the appointment of Advocate Commissioner/Receiver. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the affidavit and counter- affidavit filed by respondent No.1 in support of the present application and the counter filed by appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 respectively thereto. It is the case of respondent No.1 that in spite of order of interim injunction granted by the Court below, the appellants were alienating the suit schedule properties, and as such, he filed the present application seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner/Receiver. The appellants denied the alienations made by respondent No.1 about the alienations, but specifically stated in the counter that the properties which are alleged to have been sold under registered sale deeds, were sold much prior to the filing of the suit and that they were sold only to discharge the family debts of the joint family of the appellants and respondent No.2, and that they are managing the properties properly and there is no loss caused and that no account is being maintained with respect to agricultural investment. Be that as it may, since the suit filed by respondent No.1 is one for partition of the suit schedule properties, and if he succeeds in the suit, he would be entitled to share in the suit schedule properties, and having regard to the facts of the case, to protect his interest, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the C.M.A. with the following directions: The order under appeal is set aside. The appellants are permitted to harvest the crop subject to their depositing Rs.60,000/- per annum to the credit of the suit. They shall deposit the said amount before harvesting the crop. After harvesting the crop, they are permitted to raise the next crop. The amounts so deposited shall be subject to the result of the suit. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Dated: 23rd December, 2011 KSR [1] 1993 (2) ALT 154