JUDGEMENT - DR. E.S. DA SILVA, J.:---This order will dispose of an application filed by the Court Receiver appointed by the Supreme Court of India in Special Civil Suit No. 131 of 1992 filed by the petitioner against the respondents for restoration of possession and other reliefs which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa. 2. The case of the Court Receiver is that consequent upon his appointment he sought to take possession of the suit property consisting of a residential house and the land surrounding the house. However the petitioner objected to the Court Receiver taking possession of the entire property and hence he is seeking directions from the Court as to whether he should take formal possession of the whole property as described by him consisting of the house and the land appurtenant thereto or the suit house described in prayer (a) of the plaint. 3. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Counsel for the respondents, has submitted that in his view the Court Receiver is entitled to take possession of the entire property described in the Land Registration Office under No. 12601. According to the learned Counsel the suit property although identified by the petitioner in the plaint as being the residential house of the petitioner includes also the land surrounding the said house and as such the petitioner was bound to give possession to the Court Receiver who was appointed to take care and charge of the property in dispute. 4. Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand contends that the suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondents for recovery of the house only and in the prayer made by him he has sought recovery of the house and not of the land surrounding the said house. The learned Counsel urged that there is no dispute about the land and therefore the Court Receiver under the guise of the Supreme Court's order trying to take possession of the land surrounding the house does not arise at all. 5. In my view there is indeed a valid point in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel urged that there is no dispute about the land and therefore the Court Receiver under the guise of the Supreme Court's order trying to take possession of the land surrounding the house does not arise at all. 5. In my view there is indeed a valid point in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The order of the Supreme Court has expressly appointed the Court Receiver of the High Court of Bombay as Receiver of the property in question with a rider that the Receiver will formerly take possession and permit the petitioner to reside in the house as his agent on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit. Admittedly the suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, on the ground that the respondents had trespassed into his residential house and the main prayer made is for the restoration of the suit house to the petitioner with a restraint put on the respondents to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and his family members with regard to the said house. An alternate prayer is that the petitioner be appointed as a receiver of the suit house and the respondents be directed to hand over the possession of the same to the petitioner as receiver thereof. 6. It is thus obvious that the only dispute which was the subject matter of the appeal before the Supreme Court is regarding possession of the suit house which was identified by the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the plaint as being house No. 112 (old No. E-72) situated at Campal, Panjim, although he has given the boundaries of the plot of land where the house was located and according to which the surrounding land is to be considered as per the Court Receiver's say, for the purpose of identifying the property in question. This much appears to be the stand taken by the Court Receiver when in his letter dated 20th August, 1993 addressed by him to a Valuer appointed to suggest to him as to what would be the fair and reasonable loyalty payable by the petitioner, as his agent, for the use, enjoyment and occupation of the suit house, that is to say, House No. 112 (old No. E-72) situated at Campal, Panjim, he clearly distinguished the property surrounding the house as a distinct and different unit from the very house itself by requiring the Valuer to prepare a report of the market value of the suit house as well as of the surrounding property separately. 7. This being the position I am satisfied that the issue raised by the Court Receiver appears to be misconceived inasmuch as the Court Receiver's claim that consequent upon receivership he is entitled to take possession not only of the suit house but also of the land surrounding the house appears to lack any sound foundation either in facts or in law. 8. Mr. Lotlikar's next submission that the terms of the Supreme Court's reference does not confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain the prayer made by the Receiver for clarification of the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in its order appears also impermissible in view of the fact that the Court Receiver himself has properly understood the scope of the said order and approached this Court for guidance with regard to the difficulties which arose in taking possession of the property in question and in respect whereof he was appointed as Court Receiver. Indeed the terms of the order of the Supreme Court plainly reflect that in case the petitioner, who was the respondent in the appeal before the Supreme Court, was unable to enter into agreement with the Receiver on the terms of agency finalized by him, the Receiver was required to make an application for obtaining appropriate directions. Indeed the terms of the order of the Supreme Court plainly reflect that in case the petitioner, who was the respondent in the appeal before the Supreme Court, was unable to enter into agreement with the Receiver on the terms of agency finalized by him, the Receiver was required to make an application for obtaining appropriate directions. The controversy created on account of the refusal by the petitioner to hand over the possession of the land surrounding the house is no doubt a subject coming in the way of the finalization of the agreement with the Receiver with regard to the question of the petitioner being allowed to reside in the suit premises as the Court Receiver's agent in the terms and conditions to be finalized by the Court Receiver. Hence the alternative argument advanced by the learned Counsel is on this count itself bound to be rejected. 9. In the result the answer is that the Court Receiver, in pursuance of the order of the Honourable Supreme Court shall take possession of the suit house only and not of the land surrounding the said house. Order accordingly. Application allowed.