KARSONDAS VIRJI THAKKAR AND ANR. versus JAGANNATH SOWAR VAITY AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 09-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KARSONDAS VIRJI THAKKAR AND ANR. 
v. 
JAGANNATH SOWAR VAITY AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 9, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VEKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, I 908: Suit properties-Appointment of two 
receivers by Court in respect of same property-Permissibility of 
A 
B 
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 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
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. 
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: 
Leave granted 
We have heard both the parties. The tangle can be resolved by adopting 
the following procedure: 
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 
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 
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 
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. V AITY 
455 
Shri P. Chidambaram, learned senior coun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.