THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No: 762 of 2007 JUDGMENT: The respondent filed O.S.No.50 of 1999 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, against the petitioners for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. For one reason or the other, the final decree was not passed as yet. The respondent filed I.A.No.396 of 2007 under Order 40 Rule 1 C.P.C., with a payer to appoint receiver, to administer the suit schedule properties. The petitioners opposed the application. Through its order dated 12.09.2007, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence this C.M.A. Sri M. Venkatram Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent is not cooperating in the final decree proceedings and had come forward with an application for appointment of receiver. He contends that except one item the suit schedule properties are agricultural lands, and appointment of receiver would lead to several complications. Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that the appellants are enjoying the property to the exclusion of his client and therefore an application for appointment of receiver had to be filed. The first appellant and the sole respondent are sisters. The second appellant is the husband of the first appellant. The suit is in relation to the properties held by the mother of the first appellant and the respondent. The preliminary decree was passed way back on 13.09.2002. The final decree itself could have been passed by this time. The appointment of receiver at this stage would not be in the interest of any one since agriculture needs constant supervision. After the matter was argued by the learned counsel at some length, an offer has been made on behalf of the respondent, to the effect that she would cultivate the land by paying a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as rent. On receiving instructions, the learned counsel for the appellants has agreed for this proposal. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order under appeal. I.A.No.396 of 2007 is disposed of directing that a) The respondent shall be entitled to cultivate the entire agricultural land shown in the suit schedule on her payment of Rs.2,00,000/- per year. b) A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited into the Court by the respondent within a period of four weeks from today. As and when such deposit is made, the appellants shall handover the possession of the suit schedule agricultural land, duly taking out any inventory in respect of any items such as electrical motors and their appliances, signed by both the parties. c) The next instalment of lease amount shall be paid by 31.01.2010. d) The respondents shall be entitled to withdraw half of the deposited amount, without furnishing security and the balance shall lie to the credit of the suit. e) The lease shall be initially for a period of one year or till passing of final decree, whichever is earlier and the renewal thereof shall be considered by the trial Court in case, the final decree is not passed by 31.08.2010. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 4th August, 2009 Note: C.C. by one week. (B/o) Js.