Supreme Court of India
KARSONDAS VIRJI THAKKAR AND ANR.versusJAGANNATH SOWAR VAITY AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1994 INSC 594
- Decided
- 9 December 1994
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Supreme Court held that while the same receiver may continue in both suits, the parties to each suit must be made parties to any further proceedings to avoid conflict, and the order was not disturbed.
Summary
In Suit No. 252/80 filed by K.V. Thakkar and others, the High Court appointed a Court Receiver to take custody of the disputed property. In a separate Suit No. 983/90 filed by Jagannath Sowar Vaity and others for declaration of title, three successive judges ordered that the same Court Receiver continue to hold the property. The Division Bench later directed that the Receiver remain in place for Suit No. 983/90 until the pending notice of motion was disposed of. The appellants contended that two receivers could not operate over the same property and that the order created a conflict of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the respondents in Suit No. 983/90 were not parties to Suit No. 252/80, and the court could not compel the plaintiffs to make them parties, but to avoid conflict the Receiver must include all interested parties in any further proceedings and the court must hear them before passing orders. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without disturbing the impugned order.
Issues considered
- Whether a Court can appoint the same receiver to act in two separate suits concerning the same property.
- Whether the respondents in one suit can be made parties to the other suit for the purpose of the receiver's actions.
- Whether the Division Bench's order directing the receiver to continue in Suit No. 983/90 is legally tenable.
Legislation cited
Subjects
receiver appointmentcivil proceduremultiple suitscustodia legisconflict of jurisdictionparty inclusionproperty dispute
Judgment
KARSONDAS VIRJI THAKKAR AND ANR. A
v.
JAGANNATH SOWAR VAITY AND ORS.
DECEMBER 9, 1994
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VEKATACHALA, JJ.] B
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908: Suit properties-Appointment of two
receivers by Court in respect ofsame property-Permissibility of
In a suit (No. 252 of 1980) filed by the appellant-plaintiff the
Court appointed a receiver for the suit properties. In another suit (No. C
983 of 1990) filed by the respondent-plaintiffs for declaration of title on
three different occasions three Judges passed diffrent orders continuing
the Court receiver to be receiver in the suit filed by the _appellant-
plaintiffs. Later, the respondents moved another motion which the
Division Bench of the lligh Court directed the Court receiver to
continue to be the Court receiver in the suit filed by the respondent- D
plaintiffs till the disposal of Notice of Motion.
In appeal to this Court it was contended that the Division Bench
was not right in directing that the Court receiver will be the receiver in
suit filed by respondent-plaintiffs inasmuch as two receivers cannot be. E
allowed to operate in respect of the same property.
Disposing the appeal, this Court
HELD: 1. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court need not disturb the impugned order, as it is of the view that
respondents-plaintiffs in Suit NO. 983/90 were not made parties- F
defendants in Suit No. 252/80. This court cannot direct the plaintiffs in
Suit No. 252/80 to make respondents as party defendants in that suit.
However, to avoid possible conflict of action to be taken by the
Receiver, at the instance of the parties, it is necessary that if he deems it
necessary to take any action pursuant to the instructions issued by the
plaintiffs in Suit No. 252/80 or plaintiffs in Suit No. 983/90, he should G
make all of them as parties to such proceedings or of Motion and they
will be heared by the Court in respect of that proceedings or Motion
and the Court to pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties
so that parties would take appropriate action according to law.
[455BtoC] H
453
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R
A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9473 of
1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.94 of the Bombay High
Court in A. No. 711 of 1994 in Notice of Motion No. 2138/94 in Suit No.
983of1990.
B
Ashok Desai, S. Fazl and P.H. Parekh for the Appellants.
P. Chidambaram, R.S. Raymond, R. Karanjawala, P.K.Mullick, Ruby
Ahuja and M. Karanjawala for the Respondent/Cav.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
c
Leave granted
We have heard both the parties. The tangle can be resolved by adopting
the following procedure:
D K.V. Thakkar and another.are the plaintiffs in Suit No. 252of1980 on
the original side in the High Court. Equally, respondents 1 to 17 in this
special leave petition are the plaintiffs in Suit No. 983/90 on the original
side in the High Court. Initially, in Suit No. 252/80, on a motion, a Court
Receiver has been appointed as a custodia legis of the properties involved
in the suit. In Suit No. 983/90, filed by the respondents for declaration of
E title, on three different occasions, three learned Judges on the original side
passed orders, the result of which was that the Court Receiver should
continue in possession of the suit property as custodia legis. Later on the
respondents moved another motion in which the Division Bench, on appeal,
in the impugned order dated October 24, 1994, directed the Court Receiver
to continue to be the Court Receiver in Suit No. 983/90 till the disposal of
F the Notice of motion. Calling in question, the appeal has been filed.
Shri Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel for the appellants, has
contended that in view of the fact that on three different occasions, the
learned Single Judges have passed different orders continuing the Court
Receiver to be·the Receiver in Suit No. 252/80, the first order having been
G allowed to become final, the directions issued by the Division Bench in the
impugned order that the Receiver to be the Receiver in Suit No. 983/90,
would be contradictory in terms and two Receivers cannot be allowed to
operate in respect of the same property. Therefore, the Division Bench was
not right in directing that the Court Receiver will be the Receiver in Suit
H . No. 983/90.
K. V. THAKKAR v. J. S. VAITY 455
Shri P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the respondents, A
refuted the contention. Though we find force in the contention of Sri Desai,
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we need not
disturb the order. We are of the view that respondents-plaintiffs in Suit No.
983/90 were not made parties-defendants in Suit No. 252/80. We cannot
direct the plaintiffs in Suit No. 252/80 to make respondents as party
defendants in that suit. However, to avoid possible conflict of action to be B
taken by the Receiver, at the instance of the parties, it is necessary that ifhe
deems it necessary to take any action pursuant to the instructions issued by
the plaintiffs in Suit No. 252/80 or plaintiffs in Suit No. 983/90, he should
make all of them as parties to such proceedings or of the Motion and they
will be heard by the Court in respect of that proceedings or Motion and the
Court to pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties so that parties C
would take appropriate action according to law.
The controversy would thus be resolved for the time being pending
notice of Motion No.2138/94 so that there would be no conflict of action.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
D
T.N.A. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "receiver appointment"Sign in to search