IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.968 OF 2010 Between: Mandapaka Krishnaveni ..... APPELLANT AND Malladi Sarojini Devi and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.968 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The respondents filed O.S.No.25 of 2010 against the appellant and another in the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for comprehensive reliefs of (a) cancellation of agreement of sale, dated 26.07.1996; (b) setting aside the decree, dated 17.04.2000, in O.S.No.155 of 1999 passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada; and (c) eviction of the appellant herein from the suit schedule premises. 2. They filed I.A.Nos.6, 7 and 8 of 2010 in the present suit for appointment of Commissioner to note down the physical features; to grant temporary injunction restraining the appellant from alienating the suit schedule property; and another temporary injunction restraining her from altering the nature of the property, and the three applications were ordered. 3. Respondents filed I.A.No.251 of 2010, under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, for appointment of a Receiver. It was pleaded that despite the orders of temporary injunction, the appellant caused certain alterations in the premises. The application was opposed by the appellant. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order, dated 26.10.2010. Hence, this appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Bereft of the minor details, the back ground of the case is that the appellant filed O.S.No.155 of 1999 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, against the respondents and another for the relief of Specific Performance of an agreement of sale. Ex parte decree was passed on 17.04.2000 and ultimately, the sale deed was executed by the Court itself on 17.07.2004, the possession of the property was delivered on 16.12.2008, after disposal of several applications. The respondents pleaded that the agreement of sale was absolutely without any basis, and that the decree was obtained fraudulently. The present suit was instituted to nullify the decree in O.S.No.155 of 1999. 6. It is in rare and exceptional cases that the Courts would appoint a Receiver to administer the suit schedule properties. Before appointing a Receiver, a specific finding is to be recorded as to how the property cannot be permitted to be enjoyed or managed by either of the parties and how the damage or loss was being caused to it. 7. In the instant case, the possession of the property was delivered to the appellant through the process of Court in execution of a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale. It is not as if the petitions are taken by surprise, about the event of taking of possession of the property. Considerable litigation preceded the process of delivery of possession. The reliefs claimed in the present suit are dependant upon several factors. Considerable exercise is to be under taken in the process of challenging the very agreement of sale and the steps that have ensued thereafter. 8. By the time the suit was filed, the appellant was in lawful possession of the property. In case, she has violated any of the orders of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court, steps can certainly be taken under relevant provisions of law. The appointment of a Receiver would deprive the appellant, totally of the right to enjoy the same. Very strong case was required to be made, to deny the appellant, the benefit of a decree obtained by her in O.S.No.155 of 1999. 9. This Court is of the view that there was no justification for the trial Court in appointing the Receiver. 10. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed and the order, dated 26.10.2010 passed in I.A.No.251 of 2010 in O.S.No.25 of 2010 is set aside. The Receiver shall forthwith hand over the suit property to the appellant. It is made clear that in case the appellant has violated the orders of the trial Court in any manner, she shall be liable to be proceeded against, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J June 30, 2011 MD Note: Furnish C.C. today. B/O.GJ/MD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.968 OF 2010 June 30, 2011