JUDGMENT
R.N. Misra, J.
1. This is an appeal directed
against the order dated 3-2-65
passed by the learned Subordinate
Judge, Berhampur, directing recovery of
possession of certain properlies which had
been sold away by the ex-receiver in
favour of the appellants without authority of
the court.
2. In T. S. No. 23 of 1943
there was a compromise in April 1951.
The subject matter of the title suit
related to vast immovable properties and a
running business. Receivers were appointed
to be in charge of the properties. Damodar
Sahu, a member of the family, came to be
appointed as a receiver. In February,
1959 Damodar appointed an authorised
agent and in [July, 1959 there were a
number of transfers under which properties
which were the subject matter of the
litigation and in respect of which receiver
had been appointed were alienated in
favour of a number of persons. In April,
1961 Damodar was discharged from
receivership. , An application was made in
the court of the learned Subordinate
Judge purporting to be under Order 40,
Rule 1 read with Section 151, Civil P. C.
on 6-11-63 by Dayanidhi Sahu who
happens to be a party and receiver for
eviction of the transferees and for recovery
of possession of the properties. As it
appears from the schedule, the extent of
properties transferred was about 88 acres.
The learned Subordinate Judge called
upon the transferees to file their objection
and many of them appeared and contested
the proceeding. The learned Subordinate
Judge took into consideration the various
contentions raised on behalf of the
transferee-opposite parties. Their first
contention was that the petitioner had no
locus standi. Secondly they contended that
the petition was not maintainable in law
without impleading the State of Orissa as a
party mainly on account of the fact that
some of the properties had vested in the
State of Orissa by operation of law under
Act I of 1952. The third contention was
that the estate having already vested in the
State Government the relief for eviction
was not maintainable. All these contentious
were negatived by the learned
Subordinate Judge and he came to hold
that the sale deeds were illegal and void,
and the respondents were liable to be
evicted from the disputed lands. He
accordingly called upon the transferees to
make over the vacant possession of the
disputed properties under their possession
to the petitioner receiver within a month
from the date of the order failing which
the receiver was permitted to take
possession by execution.
3. The appeal in this Court has
been dismissed as against respondents .2,
3, 7, 15
to 21, 22 and 25 by two separate
orders being orders Nos. 17 and 29.
The dismissal of this appeal may not lead
to total abatement on account of the fact
that the alienations which were attacked in
the proceeding were different and the
causes of action were independent and
severable. As it appears, these
respondents are also alienees who have not
joined in the appeal as appellants.
4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel
for the appellants raised two contentions.
According to him, in a summary
proceeding of this nature title to the
disputed properties should not have been
gone into and concluded. He further
contends that a reasonable and adequate
opportunity of contest has not been given
to the alienees. Even the documents which
they had filed in the court below, as would
appear from the impugned order, were
not exhibited and taken into account to find
out whether the title that has been
conveyed to the alienees should be
sustained or not. According to him,
while the general title in respect of the
disputed properties was the subject-
matter of litigation in the partition suit in
which receivers had been appointed, in
consequence of different statutes coming
into force like the temporary tenancy
legislations and the Orissa Estates Abolition
Act different consequences had arisen and
the learned Subordinate Judge should
at least have applied his mind to find out
the incidence of these statutes on the
disputed properties and should have
further examined as to whether the alienor
Damodar Sahu had any personal interest in
these properties which could be duly
conveyed under the various sale deeds. To
support his contention he makes
reference to some comments in
Woodroffe’s Tagore Law Lecture on the
law Relating to Receivers. He also seeks to
place reliance on an observation of their
Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR
1958 SC 725, Kanhaiyalal v. Dr. D.
R. Banaji.
5. The contentions raised by Mr.
Mohanty, however, cannot be sustained in
the facts’ of the present case. Admittedly
the property was in custodia legis at the
material point of time. Damodar may have
been a party with some interest in the dis-
puted property, but qua receiver he had no
right to alienate the properly without the
leave of the court. It is well known that a
receiver holds property as an officer of the
court for the ultimate successful party |in a
litigation. The position of a party receiver is
not different in law. Ahmad, J. |in AIR
1959 Pat 582, Jamilur Rahaman v.
Laxmi Narayan examined a case of this
type and held,
“In law it is well
established that in certain circumstances in
matters like this the Court may resort to
summary proceeding and award relief both
for or against a third person who is not a
party to the suit. This is based on the
principle that once a court
is in possession of a property in custodia
legis through a Receiver, it is the duty of the
Court to see that the property is kept intact
and secure in the interests of those for
whom the Court holds it.
Necessarily, therefore, if a third
person comes to deal with that
property on the basis of a transaction
entered into between him and the
Court, either directly or through the
Receiver, he, by implication, surrenders
himself to the Court so far as the
transaction relating to the property is
concerned. ……Therefore, to that
extent, it cannot
be said that the Court had no jurisdiction to
deal with the relief that was brought to its
notice in that connection, though at the
instance of the third party purchaser.”
On the aforesaid analysis I am not
prepared to accept the contentions of Mr.
Mohanty. The impugned order is bound
to be sustained. The appeal fails and is
dismissed. The receiver would be entitled
to his costs of this Court and of the
Court below.