Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.28 seconds)Section 94 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ry. Sivaji Raja Sahib And Anr. vs Ry. V. Aiswariyanandaji Sahib And Ors. on 16 April, 1915
Secondly, where the property is in
media that is to say, in the possession
of no one, a Receiver can readily be
appointed. But where any one is in
possession under a legal claim strong &
compelling reasons are necessary for
interfering with such possession :
'Sivaji Raja Sahib v. Aiswariyanaudaji
Sahib', AIR 1915 Mad 926 at p. 929
(Z15); AIR 1924 Mad 482 at p. 483
(Z12). Thus the 'bona fide' purchaser of
the property 'bona fides have to be
presumed unless and until the contrary
can be inferred in dispute should not
be disturbed by the appointment of a
Receiver unless there is some
substantial and compelling ground for
such interference.
Srimati Mathuria Debya vs Shibdoyal Singh Hazari And Ors. on 6 December, 1909
);
'Mathuria Debya v. Shibdayal Singh', 14
Cal WN 252 (Z26); 'Bhubaneswar Prasad
v. Rajeshwar Prasad', AIR 1948 Pat 195
rt
(Z27). Otherwise a receiver should not be
appointed in supersession of a bone fide
possessor of property in controversy and
bona fides have to be presumed until the
contrary is established or can be
indubitably inferred.
Muniammal vs P.M. Ranganatha Nayagar And Anr. on 11 October, 1954
29. The same principles have been laid down by the
Madras High Court in the case titled as Muniammal
versus P.M. Ranganatha Nayagar and another,
reported in AIR 1955 Madras 571. It is profitable to
reproduce para 19 of the judgment herein:
R.E. Muhammad Qasim Ravuther vs R.G. Nagaraja Moopanar And Ors. on 28 April, 1927
"19. The principles which should guide
Indian Courts in the appointment of a
Receiver are three in number. First of
all, a plaintiff applying for the
appointment of a Receiver must show
'prima facie' that he has a strong case
and good tide to the property or a
special equity in his favour and that the
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:01:34 :::HCHP
16
property in the hands of the defendant
is in danger of being wasted;
'Muhammad Qasim Ravather v.
Nagaraja Moopanar', AIR 1928 Mad
.
Gurusami Pandiyan vs Sendatti Kalai Pandia Chinnathambiar ... on 12 March, 1920
813 at p. 814 (Z13). It is not enough for
the plaintiff to show that he has a fair
question to raise as to the extent of the
right alleged as in the case of a
temporary injunction, but he must go
further and make out that he has a
good 'prima facie' title requiring
of
Court's protection and safeguarding
pending litigation and which must be
made out on the facts of that particular
case. 'Guruswami Pandiyan v. S. K. P.
Chinnathambirar', AIR 1919 Mad 157
rt
at p. 158 (Z14).
Rasi Dei vs Bikal Maharana And Ors. on 30 April, 1964
titled as Rasi Dei versus Bikal Maharana and others,
reported in AIR 1965 Orissa 20, herein:
T. Krishnaswamy Chetty vs C. Thangavelu Chetty And Ors. on 6 December, 1954
laid down by the Madras High Court in T.
Krishnaswamy's case (supra).
Vythilinga Pandarasannadhi, Trustee ... vs The Board Of Control, Sri ... on 30 April, 1931
no present right to disturb his
possession. This was the view taken by
Ramesam and Cornish, JJ. In
Vythulinga Pandarasannadhi v. Board
of Control, Thiagarajaswami
Devasthanam, (AIR 1932 Mad 193). I
fully agree with this view. I make these
of
observations because it was argued by
Mr. Inder Dass that the provision was
an impediment in the way of the
appointment of a receiver in the present
case having regard to the fact, as he
rt
said, that the plaintiffs had yet to
establish their right to eject the
defendants and that way they had no
present right to disturb their
possession.