CRP(MD)/2604/2026 of T. Viraja Vs R.Tharanipathi on 22 September 2026

COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions have been filed against the orders dated 30.06.2026 passed in I.A.Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 of 2025 in O.S.No.298 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Viruthunagar District at Srivilliputhur.

2. I.A. No. 1 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking a direction to the respondents/defendants to produce documents relating to the business transactions pertaining to the suit schedule properties, which are stated to be in their possession.

3. I.A. No. 3 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking production of the hospital discharge summary of the first respondent/first defendant, which is stated to be in the possession of the respondents/defendants.

4. I.A. No. 4 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking the appearance of the first respondent/first defendant before the Court for cross-examination with regard to the genuineness of his signature found in the vakalatnama filed on his behalf.

5. I.A. No. 5 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking the appointment of a receiver to manage and maintain the suit schedule properties, collect the income derived therefrom and deposit the same before the trial Court.

6. The petitioner is the plaintiff, and the respondents are the defendants in the suit instituted for partition, permanent injunction, mesne profits and rendition of accounts. The first defendant is the father of the petitioner, the second defendant is her mother, and the third defendant is her brother.

7. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 1 of 2025 seeking production of accounts relating to the income and expenditure derived from the suit schedule properties, which comprise a marriage hall, a hotel, a meeting hall and other properties, for the period from 01.09.2024 to 31.12.2024. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the respondents had contended that the properties were their self-acquired properties. The trial Court further held that, until the petitioner established that the properties were joint family properties and that she was entitled to a share therein as a coparcener, she could not seek production of the accounts.

8. As regards I.A. No. 3 of 2025, the petitioner sought production of the hospital discharge summary of the first respondent/first defendant to substantiate her contention that he was not in a sound state of mind and to dispute the genuineness of the signature appearing in the vakalatnama filed on his behalf. I.A. No. 4 of 2025 was filed seeking the appearance of the first respondent/first defendant for cross-examination with regard to the disputed signature in the vakalatnama. I.A. No. 5 of 2025 was filed seeking the appointment of a receiver to manage the suit schedule properties, collect the income derived therefrom and deposit the same before the trial Court. The trial Court dismissed the aforesaid applications.

9. In the counter filed by the respondents, it was contended that the first respondent had been admitted only to a general ward of the hospital and was subsequently discharged. It was further contended that the petitioner had no right to question the discharge summary or insist upon the appearance of the first respondent before the Court. Accepting the contention that his appearance was unnecessary, the trial Court dismissed the application seeking his appearance for cross-examination.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, insofar as I.A. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of 2025 are concerned, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the relevant pleas at the appropriate stage of the trial. In view of the said submission, the learned counsel stated that the petitioner was not pressing C.R.P.(MD) Nos. 2604 to 2606 of 2026 at this stage. Accordingly, C.R.P.(MD) Nos. 2604 to 2606 of 2026 are dismissed as not pressed.

11. C.R.P.(MD) No. 2607 of 2026. Insofar as I.A.No.5 of 2025 is concerned, the petitioner filed an application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908, seeking the appointment of a receiver to collect the rent and other income derived from the suit schedule properties and deposit the same before the Court.

12. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the respondents had marked Exs.B1 to B15 in support of their contention that the properties had been purchased in their names and that the petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence to establish that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties. The trial Court further observed that the question as to whether the properties were joint family properties or the self-acquired properties of the respondents could be decided only at the stage of passing the preliminary decree. In view of the disputed nature of the title to the properties, the trial Court held that the appointment of a receiver was not warranted at that stage.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court had failed to consider the well-established principles governing the appointment of a receiver. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in T. Krishnaswamy

Chetty v. C. Thangavelu Chetty and Others, reported in AIR 1955 Madras 430, wherein, in paragraph 13, the following five principles governing the appointment of a receiver were laid down: “13. The five principles which can he described as the "panch sadachar' of our Courts exercising equity jurisdiction in appointing receivers are as follows :

(1) The appointment of a receiver pending a suit is a matter resting in the discretion of the Court. The discretion is not arbitrary or absolute: it is a sound and judicial discretion, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, exercised-for the purpose of permitting the ends of justice, and protecting the rights of all parties interested in the controversy and the subject-matter and based upon the fact that there is no other adequate remedy or means of accomplishing the desired objects of the judicial proceeding.

(2) The Court should not appoint a receiver except upon proof by the plaintiff that prima facie he has very excellent chance of succeeding in the suit.

(3) Not only must the plaintiff show a case of adverse and conflicting claims to property, but, he must show some emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action and of his own right, he must be reasonably clear and free from doubt. The element of danger is an important consideration. A Court will not act on possible danger only; the danger must be great and imminent demanding immediate relief.

(4) An order appointing a receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of de facto possession, since that might cause irreparable wrong. If the dispute is as to title only, the Court will be reluctant to disturb possession by appointing a receiver. However, if the property is exposed to danger and loss, and the person in possession has obtained it through fraud or force, the Court may intervene by appointing a receiver for the protection of the property. It would be different where the property is shown to be in medio, that is, in the enjoyment of no one, as the Court can take possession of it for preservation for the benefit of the person who may ultimately succeed. In the absence of such circumstances, a receiver should not be appointed in supersession of a bona fide possessor of the property.

(5) The Court, while considering an application for the appointment of a receiver, must examine the conduct of the party seeking such relief and will ordinarily refuse to interfere unless the applicant’s conduct has been free from blame. The applicant must approach the Court with clean hands and must not have disentitled himself or herself to equitable relief by laches, delay, acquiescence or other improper conduct.”

14. Upon perusal of the records, it is seen that the suit has been instituted for partition, separate possession and mesne profits. The petitioner claims that the suit schedule properties are coparcenary properties, whereas the respondents, who are her father, mother and brother, contend that the properties are their self-acquired properties. Thus, the nature and character of the properties remain in dispute.

15. At this stage, the petitioner has not established a prima facie entitlement to the relief claimed in respect of the suit schedule properties so as to warrant the appointment of a receiver. The question as to whether the properties constitute joint family properties or are the self- acquired properties of the respondents will have to be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. The mere pendency of a partition suit, in the absence of sufficient material establishing an imminent danger to the properties or a necessity for their immediate protection, would not, by itself, justify the appointment of a receiver.

16. Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empowers the Court, where it appears to be just and convenient, to

appoint a receiver in respect of any property, whether before or after the passing of a decree. The provision further empowers the Court to remove any person from the possession or custody of the property, commit the property to the possession, custody or management of the receiver and confer upon the receiver such powers as may be necessary for the realisation, management, protection and preservation of the property, including the collection of rents and profits.

17. The power to appoint a receiver is an equitable and discretionary power that must be exercised judicially, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Such an appointment is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be granted as a matter of course. The applicant must establish the necessity for such an appointment by demonstrating circumstances warranting immediate intervention for the protection of the property or the interests of the parties.

18. In the present case, the trial Court considered the rival contentions of the parties and found that the petitioner had not produced sufficient material to establish that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties or that circumstances existed warranting the appointment of a receiver. The question of title to the properties remains to be adjudicated at the appropriate stage of the suit. Further, no sufficient material has been placed before the Court to establish any imminent danger to the properties or any compelling circumstance necessitating the appointment of a receiver at this stage.

19. In the absence of such material, the appointment of a receiver cannot be ordered merely on the ground that the petitioner has sought partition and rendition of accounts. This Court finds no illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, C.R.P.(MD) No. 2607 of 2026 is liable to be dismissed.

20. In the result:

(i) C.R.P.(MD) Nos.2604 to 2606 of 2026 are dismissed as not pressed.

(ii) C.R.P.(MD) No.2607 of 2026 is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.5 of 2025.

(iii) The petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate separate proceedings under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the claim for mesne profits, in accordance with law.

(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.

(v) Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

22.09.2026 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM To The Additional District and Sessions Court, Viruthunagar District at Srivilliputhur.

R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)Nos.2604 to 2607 of 2026 22.09.2026