THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.5658 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and decree made in C.M.A.No.32 of 2008 dated 28.7.2009 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore, whereunder the order passed in I.A.No.104 of 2008 in O.S.No.233 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur allowing the application filed under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC for appointment of receiver and to take possession of the plaint schedule properties and to manage the same was modified to that of a direction to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the plaintiff from the date of petition till the disposal of the suit. Petitioners are defendants and respondent is plaintiff in the suit bearing O.S.No.233 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. Respondent laid suit O.S.No.233 of 2007 for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.2-68 cents. During the pendency of suit, she had also filed I.A.No.104 of 2008 under Order 40 Rule 1 of CPC for appointment of receiver to take possession of the suit schedule property and to manage the same till the disposal of the suit. After hearing both parties, the said I.A. was allowed as prayed for by order dated 22.8.2008. Aggrieved thereby, defendants carried the matter in appeal being C.M.A.No.32 of 2008 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore. The appellate Court, while concurring with the findings of the trial Court, modified the order to the effect that “the order of the trial Court is modified by setting aside the appointment of Receiver and the appellants are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) per month to the plaintiff from the date of petition till the disposal of the suit, which can be considered in the final decree petition while assessing the mesne profits. If the appellants fail to pay the amount within reasonable time, then the trial Court can revise the order and appoint Receiver”. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is filed. The learned counsel for petitioners Sri Ch.C.Krishna Reddy strenuously contended that firstly the appointment of receiver itself was not necessary and there was no balance of convenience in favour of respondent herein. He further contended that the respondent is the first wife of father of petitioners. She had no issues and deserted the home 40 years ago and laid the present suit without any basis. The lower appellate Court, though concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court, ought not to have granted the relief of payment of Rs.4000/- per month by the petitioners to the respondent during the pendency of suit. Such a power is not vested with the Court while considering the application filed under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondent Sri V.Narayan Reddy strenuously contended that the respondent was necked out after the marriage of mother of petitioners with respondent’s husband only to deny the share of respondent, therefore she had filed suit for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit schedule property. According to the learned counsel, the suit lands are very fertile lands and the petitioners are enjoying the fruits out of the same and denying the same to the respondent. Therefore, the lower Court made some arrangements to protect the interest of respondent in view of the fact that she made an allegation in the affidavit in support of I.A. that as the suit schedule property is only the property left by her husband and she is not able to maintain herself, the petitioners are enjoying the suit schedule property by receiving yielding from the land without giving any share to the respondent and it is very difficult to lead her life. The learned counsel further stated that the respondent has got equal rights over the suit schedule property along with petitioners. Under those circumstances, in its wisdom and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Court has set aside the order of the trial Court and alternatively directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- every month to the respondent. Such an order cannot be disturbed by this Court. In this regard, the learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in BOLLAREDDY BRAHMANANDA REDDY AND ANOTHER v. BOLLAREDDY SEETHAYAMMA @ SEETHAMMA[1]. He also relied upon the judgment in KARUMANCHI PADMAPRIYA AND OTHERS v. CHIRASANI RATNAKUMARI AND OTHERS[2] and drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 18, which reads as under: “…………………….The protection of the properties and safeguarding of the rights of the parties shall be the twin objectives impelling the appointment of receiver……………” The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in RENUKA DAS v. MAYA GANGULY AND ANOTHER[3] and drawn the attention of court to paragraph 4 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order as well as the orders of the appellate Court and the trial Court. From a plain reading of the impugned order, it would be evident that the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction had interfered with the findings of fact arrived at by the appellate Court restoring the suit for eviction. It is well settled that the High Court, in revision, is not entitled to interfere with the findings of the appellate Court, until and unless it is found that such findings are perverse and arbitrary”. From the above judgments, it is deducible that a direction to safeguard the rights of the parties shall be the twin objectives impelling the appointment of receiver and the appointment of receiver is not always safe and the respondent being an old lady aged 70 years and it is her case that she is not able to maintain herself and also in view of the fact that the petitioners have not denied that she is the first wife and entitled to the property, except saying that she was given something for her maintenance. These are the issues that can be gone into at the time of trial of the suit. I am of the opinion that the lower appellate Court has made some arrangements protecting the interest of the respondent by granting Rs.4,000/- per month, however, it appears, the same is on higher side. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of petition and continue to pay the same during the pendency of suit. If there is any default on the part of the petitioners, the lower Court is at liberty to appoint the receiver and to take possession of the suit schedule property, as per law. The C.R.P. is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 27.1.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.5658 of 2009 27.1.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.5658 of 2009 Date: 27th January, 2010 Between: Sangati Eswar Reddy & another. .. Petitioners And Sangati Lakshmamma .. Respondent [1] 2006(4) ALD 479 [2] 2008(2) ALT 188 [3] (2009) 9 SCC 413