Alagarswami Thevan And Ors. vs Ramabadra Naidu Garu on 25 July, 1927
8. It does not appear to have been argued in that, case that if the property were in the hands of "the receiver and the receiver was in possession of it, no suit to recover the property or possession of the property was liable to be instituted or could 'be instituted against him by some party who is not in possession of the property. The learned Judges conceded that the receiver was not a necessary party and,. if the receiver was the person in possession it is difficult to understand how a suit for possession could be instituted against any other. It seems to have been assumed rather than decided as the result of any consideration or argument that the nature of the suit to be instituted by the plaintiff in such a case would necessarily be only a suit for the recovery of possession of the property. In any case the learned Judges seem to have proceeded on the footing that the. suit contemplated is one for possession by a party against whom an order was passed by the Magistrate because the suit before them was for possession of the property. But as it is clear that it is not in any case necessary that a suit in the circumstances should always be a suit, for the recovery or possession of property it follows that it is not in every case in which an order of the Magistrate is passed that a suit for recovery should be instituted. Even assuming that the decision in the last cited case would govern the present case we feel that, having regard to the numerous other decisions both of this Court and of the other 'High Courts we should prefer to follow the other decisions.