HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 92 OF 2010 DATED: 09.03.2010 Between: Gidipalli Koteswara Rao and others …Appellants And Gudipalli Sita Devi and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 92OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao, J) This appeal is filed against the order, dated 21.11.2009 in I.A.No.2280 of 2009 in O.S.No.9 of 2009 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to ‘as the plaintiffs and the defendants’, as they are originally arrayed in the suit. 3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the schedule mentioned property of items 1 to 15 against the defendants claiming that plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the brothers and plaintiffs 4 and 5 are their sisters and all of them are the children of late Gudipalli Lovaraju through his first wife Veera Rajamma. According to them, the marriage of Veera Rajamma with late Gudipalli Lovaraju was performed in the year 1943 and subsequently, Lovaraju married 1st defendant in the year 1947 and defendants 2 to 4 are the children of Lovaraju. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that Lovaraju died intestate on 22.12.2008. 4. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendants that the properties are not the ancestral properties of Lovaraju but they are self-acquired properties which fell to the share of Lovaraju under the partition with his father in the year 1959, during his life time, Lovaraju executed a registered will on 21.09.1994 bequeathing the schedule mentioned properties, subsequently, long after execution of the said will, Lovaraju died on 22.12.2008 and thereafter the defendants became entitled for the properties and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. 6. The only point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. 7. Admittedly, the defendants are in possession of schedule mentioned properties which are nothing but lands and they are cultivating the said lands. The contention urged on behalf of the plaintiffs is that since the schedule mentioned properties are large extent of landed property and they will be continuously deprived of the income of the landed property and therefore, the receiver be appointed which contention was rejected by the learned Court below. 8. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. We are of the considered view that merely because the plaintiffs have semblance of right for partition in the schedule mentioned property, it is not incumbent on the part of the Court to appoint a receiver to take possession of the landed property and undertake the activity of the cultivation. In a suit for partition, if the plaintiffs are able to prove their right to share in the plaint schedule property, they can as well recover the profits which remedy is available for them under law. If a large extent of cultivable land is placed in the hands of receiver who is a third party, it causes much hardship to the plaintiffs and under no circumstances we think it just and convenient to appoint a receiver. As the learned trial Court has rightly refused the remedy of appointing receiver, we see no ground to interfere with the view taken by it. The plaintiffs/appellants therefore fail to make out a case for appointment of receiver in view of the above stated reasons and therefore, they are not entitled for appointment of receiver. 9. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that a direction be issued to the defendants to deposit some amount which request also we are unable to accept since the defendants even according to the version of the plaintiffs are co-shares, it causes undue hardship to them if a direction to deposit any amount is issued and moreover, as already pointed out, the defendants can recover the profits by taking appropriate steps in a court of law. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel in MEDA BABY REDDY v. SMT. AKULA JYOTHI AND ANOTHER[1] is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and therefore, it is not possible for us to issue a direction to the plaintiffs to deposit some amount basing on the said decision. 10. In the result, the order, dated 21.11.2009 passed by the Court below in I.A.No.2280 of 2009 is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO __________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J Date:09.03.2010 Ccm/Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.92 OF 2010 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Kantha Rao,J) DATED: 09.03.2010 [1] 2010 (1) ALT 629 (D.B.)