1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR. A.O.NO.18 of 2010. Sau.Sheela w/o Sambhajirao Katkade ..vs.. Smt.Darshana w/o Dhananjay Rajurkar and ors. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.M.G.Sarda Adv. for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM: Smt. R. P. SondurBaldota, J. DATED : 26th February, 2010. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3rd of November, 2009 by which the trial court dismissed an application filed by the appellant for appointment of receiver of the suit properties of which the appellant seeks partition. Admittedly, the properly belonged to father of the appellant i.e. one Jaisingrao Rajurkar. He died in the year 1971. On his death in the year 1971, the appellant had become entitled to file a suit for partition and to claim share therein. However, no such steps were taken by the appellant. It is argued that so 2 long as mother Sulochana was alive the appellant did not consider it appropriate to file the suit for partition. Sulochana died on 15th of October, 2008. Thereafter the present suit has been filed in the year 2009. Respondent no.1 is the sister-in-law of the appellant. Respondent no.2 is the daughter of respondent no.1. The other respondents are, another daughter of Sulochanabai and heirs of a deceased daughter. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that since the suit filed is for partition of joint family property, the appellant will be entitled to a share in the proceeds and therefore it would be just and convenient that the receiver is appointed in respect of the properties. Respondents no.1 and 2 oppose the suit on the ground that the appellant and other daughters of Jaisingrao have relinquished their share in the properties. 2. There is no dispute that respondent no.1 and her husband had been cultivating the land since the death of Jaisingrao and later during the life time of Sulochana. The husband of respondent no.1 died on 8th of June, 2001. Since then the land is being cultivated by respondent no.1, the daughter-in-law. The trial court has rejected the application for appointment of receiver on the ground that respondents no.1 and 2 have been 3 looking after the agricultural land for last several years. It is not the case of the appellant that she or any of the other respondents have been cultivating the land at any point of time. Besides, the appellant has already claimed the decree for mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 Civil Procedure Code and that respondents no.1 and 2 cannot be said to be the totally strangers to the suit property, they admittedly having at least 1/4th share in the suit property. 3. Further, the learned trial court has taken into consideration that the order of the appointment of court receiver is a discretionary order and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the court declined to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant. 4. On perusal of the proceedings and the impugned order, I am satisfied that the learned trial judge has rightly rejected the application for appointment of the court receiver. There are no allegations made by the appellant either of wasting of the property or any attempt on the part of respondents no.1 and 2 to create any third party rights over the suit property. There is one solitary instance pleaded in the plaint, which is also without any particulars whatsoever. While giving list of the properties, the appellant describes the property at 4 Sr.No.(i) as the property sold jointly by Sulochana and respondent no.1. The appellant does not give particulars of either the date of sale or the name of the purchaser or the amount of consideration received by Sulochana and respondent no.1. In these circumstances, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the appeal from order is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. Chute 5