HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4354 of 2009 Date: December 06, 2010 Between: 1. Gopisetti Peda Venkaiah & 3 others. … Petitioners/ Respondents/ Defendants And 1. Nunna Sambrajyam & 3 others. … Respondents/ Appellants/ Plaintiffs * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4354 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 04.8.2009 passed in C.M.A. No.11 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, whereunder and whereby the order of the trial court passed in I.A.No.567 of 2006 in O.S. No.303 of 2005 dated 10.8.2007 appointing receiver to auction the leasehold rights of the suit land was reversed. 2. An extent of Ac.0-40 cents in Sy.No.244/3, an extent of Ac.1.55 cents in D.No.244/4 in all Ac.1.95 cents out of which an extent of Ac.0.65 cents is in dispute. 3. The suit is filed for recovery of possession admitting the possession of the defendants. The trial court observed that the defendants are in possession of the property. The only allegation is that the defendants are not paying maktha to the plaintiffs/landlords and they are claiming title by virtue of a registered gift deed. Likewise, the plaintiffs/landlords are also claiming title over the suit land by virtue of a partition deed. Therefore, the title of the parties has to be decided in the suit itself. 4. As on the date of filing of the suit when the petitioners, who are defendants in the suit, admittedly are in possession of the property, the defendants should not have been disturbed by appointing a receiver, especially a categorical finding has been recorded by the trial court to the effect that there was no likelihood of threatened danger or loss to the suit property in question and there are no just and sufficient reasons to appoint a receiver. As there is no question of waste or damage being caused to the schedule property during pendency of the suit, the appellate court ought not to have set aside the well-reasoned order of the trial court. Therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the judgment dated 04.8.2009 passed in C.M.A. No.11 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. However, to safeguard the interest of the parties, the petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- per annum on or before 15th of January every year. If the petitioners failed to do so, the order of appointment of receiver shall come into effect. Since the suit is of the year 2005, the trial court shall dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: December 06, 2010. BSB