IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1081 OF 2006 Between: Challa Kondaiah. - - - Appellant/ Defendant No.1 AND Challa Jogeswar Rao and six others. - - - Respondents. Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1081 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against order dated 09- 10-2006, delivered in I.A. No.309 of 2006 in O.S. No.203 of 2005 filed under Order 40, Rule 1 and 151 of C.P.C. on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District, seeking to appoint an Advocate Receiver to take possession of plaint schedule properties and auction their lease holds rights every year in public and to deposit its sale proceeds in the Court every year pending disposal of the Suit, allowing the claim. 2. The appellant is the first respondent in the Interlocutory Application and first defendant in the Suit and the Respondents Nos.1 to 3 are the petitioners in the Interlocutory Application and plaintiffs in the suit and the remaining respondents in the Interlocutory Application are the remaining defendants in the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Interlocutory Application. 3. In the petition it is pleaded that the petitioners 1 and 2 were the children of late Venkateswara Rao who along with the second respondent was the son of the first respondent and the plaint schedule properties belong to their joint family property and the third respondent has been causing all sorts of wastage by bringing her brother into the joint family affairs and the respondent No.1 being a very good person has been acting to the tunes of the respondent No.3 and her brother and the petitioners have been starving without any food and shelter and hence the petition was filed. 4. The third respondent filed counter adopted by the first respondent whereas no counters were filed by the Respondents 4 and 5 and the second respondent died denying the pleas taken in the petition and further claiming that the second respondent who is the husband of the third respondent used to carry on kirana business in his own right in Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property from 1991 till he died besides running a flour mill taking it on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.1,200/- p.m. and after the death of the second respondent, the third respondent has been running the mill and the brother of the third respondent is no way concerned with the affairs of the third respondents with a plea to dismiss the petition. 5. On behalf of the petitioners none were examined but got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. Further on behalf of the respondents none were examined and no documents were marked. 6. Examining the material available it is observed by the lower Court that admittedly the Respondents Nos.1 and 3 are in the possession of the property and in the first item of the plaint schedule property, there are double storied building and dall mill whereas the license for the dall mill is in the name of the third respondent and the petitioners have not shown anything to uphold their claim prima-facie for the appointment of a receiver and further as per the plaint averments the respondents are getting net income of Rs.30,000/- p.m. from the floor mill and it appears that the petitioners got no other property and after taking into consideration the circumstances enumerated, it is reasonable to direct the respondents to deposit certain amounts for the benefit of the petitioners pending disposal of the suit and accordingly directed the respondents Rs.20,000/- per annum in the court on or before 15th December every year pending disposal of the suit following the decision of this Court reported in Bollareddy Brahmanna Reddy Vs. Bollareddy seetayamma[1]. Hence, aggrieved by the same the present Appeal has been preferred. 7. The point for determination is whether the order passed by the lower Court is proper and whether there are any grounds to set aside the same? 8. Point: It is pertinent to note here that there is no dispute that the respondents 1 and 3 are in the possession and enjoyment of the property, whereas, there is dispute about the question of partition of the properties. Rightly it is observed by the lower Court that no ground was made for the purpose of appointing a receiver to manage the property taking necessary measures and to deposit the corresponding sale proceeds into the lower Court. With regards to the question of directing the respondents to deposit the said amount, there is no good basis to say what is the income of the parties from the land and without that it is not justified in directing the respondents to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- per annum. 9. However, ultimately it is conceded by learned counsel for the respondents that the amount may be reduced to Rs.10,000/- to meet the ends of justice for the benefit of the petitioners about which no dispute has been raised by the opposite side. Hence, it is reasonable to dismiss the application while modifying the question of amount to be paid to the petitioners as observed. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed modifying the order to deposit the amount to Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the petitioners without furnishing any security. No order as to costs. ___________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 17-03-2011. B/o.Dsh. [1] 2006 (2) L S 205