JUDGMENT
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. Defendants 7 to 11 in O.S. 63 of 2001, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, filed this C.M.A, aggrieved by the Order, dated 20.7.2004, in IA No. 1157 of 2002 filed therein.
2. Respondents 1 to 3 filed the suit for partition, and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Broadly stated, the plaint averments are that, their father late Trimurthulu, and the fourth respondent (Defendant No. 1) are brothers, and when their father was acting detrimental to their interest, their maternal grandfather got issued a notice in the year 1984, calling upon their father, to partition the suit schedule properties, and that no partition was effected, despite such demand. It was pleaded that, with the issuance of a notice in the year 1984, there was severance of status, and any alienations made, or acts taken by their father and the first defendant, were not binding on them. The suit schedule properties comprises of, mostly agricultural lands, some of which, are said to be in possession of tenants. They also filed LA. No. 1157 of 2002, under Order 40, Rule 1 C.P.C., for appointment of a Receiver. Respondents 5 to 14, and the appellants herein are implanted as being the alienees of the suit schedule properties.
3. The fourth respondent filed a written statement in the suit, and a counter-affidavit to the I.A, narrating the circumstances under which, various items of properties came to be sold. The appellants herein resisted the applications, by stating that the sales in their favour, were made by 4th respondent and the father of the Respondents 1 to 3, for valuable consideration, and for genuine necessities of the family, and that the sales are not vitiated, in any manner. Taking into account, the contentions put forward by the parties, the Trial Court appointed a receiver, in respect of all the suit schedule properties, through the order under appeal.
4. Sri V.LN.G.K. Murthy, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appointment of a receiver under Order 40, Rule 1 C.P.C., that too, in a suit for partition, can be resorted to only in exceptional cases, to protect the interests of the parties, and the present case does not call for such a measure. He further submits that, whatever may have been the justification for seeking appointment of receiver, in respect of the properties that are in possession and enjoyment of any of the coperceners, Kartha or members of the joint family, the properties, which are already alienated, cannot be brought under the purview of a receiver.
5. Sri P.V. Sanjeeva Rao, learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3, on the other hand, submits that the sales made, in favour of the appellants and Respondents 5 to 14, were on the face of it, illegal, and not binding on his clients, and the application was filed with a view to protect the interests of his clients. He further contends that, with the issuance of notice in the year 1984, severance of status came into existence and alienations made thereafter, are of no legal consequence.
6. It is not in dispute that the appellants are some of the alienees of the properties from Respondent No. 4 and father of Respondents 1 to 3. A receiver is to be appointed by a Court in a suit, only on being satisfied that the person in possession of the properties, is resorting to acts of wastage and that the interests of the appellants, who filed petitions under Order 40, Rule 1 C.P.C., are likely to suffer prejudice, unless the properties are put to auction and proper management. In a suit for partition, such a feasibility is available only in respect of the properties in the possession or management of the Kartha of the family, or any of the coparceners. Whenever the properties alienated by Kartha or coparceners of the joint family are included, in the schedule of a suit for partition, a right to proceed against such properties would arise, only on the strength of preliminary and final decrees. Till the alienations are held either not binding or otherwise unenforceable, the purchasers cannot be deprived of their right to enjoy the same. In a given set of circumstances, even where alienations are found to be not for the genuine necessities of the family, or otherwise unenforceable, the rights of alienees are almost kept in tact by allotting such properties to the share of their transferors. These, however are matters which depend on facts and circumstances of the case. The fact, remains that appointment of receiver in a suit for partition in respect of properties, which are already alienated is unknown to law.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the order under appeal, insofar as it relates to the property purchased by the appellants, is set aside. The suit is said to have been instituted in the year 1997. Early disposal of the same, would be in the interests of all the parties. Hence, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of this order.
8. The CM.A is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.