Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 113 (PAT)

Sunita Kumari v. Ramsanehi Singh

2006-01-30

body2006
ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the interlocutory order, dated 6.8.2003 passed by the Sub Judge III, Patnacity, in T.S. No. 257 of 1991, by which the trial court has disposed of the petition of the appellant-original plaintiff no. 2, seeking direction to the defendants nos. 1, 3, and 6, who were appointed as receivers in respect of the suit properties, to deposit the income out of two buses being plied by DAV Public School, Muzaffarpur, bearing registration no. BR-21 P/0165 and BPK-1665. 2. It appears that the trial court has given a direction to the defendants, who have been appointed receivers "pendente lite" in respect of the suit properties to deposit Rs. 8,000/- as income arising out of the suit property, i.e. But bearing regd. No. BPK-0365 instead of giving direction for deposit of an amount of Rs. 6,40,000/- with interest and also Rs. 32,000/- per month, as income received from the DAV Public School as this school has engaged the two buses of the joint family for carrying the students of the school. 3. The appellant is the original plaintiff no. 2, daughter of late Parmanand Singh, who has filed the suit for partition of the joint family properties claiming 1/4th share in the suit properties and subsequent to the death of the original plaintiff, his widow and three daughters came to be substituted as plaintiffs as the deceased died r leaving behind no male issue. 4. The respondents original defendants 1, 3 and 6 came to be appointed as receiver of the suit properties by virtue of an order recorded by this Court dated 17.10.1997 in Misc Appeal No. 343 of 1993. Let it be mentioned that the suit properties include several other business like plying of buses, petrol pump, X-ray clinic, chemical industries, as well as, the landed properties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have been heard. The impugned order has also been evaluated. There is no dispute about the fact that the original defendant nos. 1, 3, and 6 came to be appointed as receivers by the Court on 17.10.1997, with a direction to them to submit six-monthly reports to the trial court. In pursuance of the direction, the receives have been submitting six-monthly reports from 2000 after further direction. It is the case of the appellant original plaintiff no. 1, 3, and 6 came to be appointed as receivers by the Court on 17.10.1997, with a direction to them to submit six-monthly reports to the trial court. In pursuance of the direction, the receives have been submitting six-monthly reports from 2000 after further direction. It is the case of the appellant original plaintiff no. 2 that the aforesaid school had hired two buses on monthly payment of Rs. 16,000/-. One bus is also engaged by one "M/s. Pawapuri Motors" on payment of Rs. 8000/- with effect from April, 2001. The defendants took the contention that the buses are not the part of the suit properties. It appears that there is some misconception or misunderstanding in appreciating the properties articulated in the Schedules attached to the plaint, which has led to the passing of the impugned order only for a direction to the (sic?) to deposit an amount of Rs. 8000/-It is in these context, it would be expedient and, in the larger interest of justice, to pass the following final order while deciding the merits of this appeal which has been taken up on request and consensus. 6. The trial court is directed to reconsider the prayer made in the application for direction to deposit the income in respect of the suit properties considering the facts and circumstances, as well as, after hearing the parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the records which are directed to be sent down immediately. The suit is also directed to be expedited. 7. With these observations, the appeal is partly allowed and the matter is sent back to the trial court for reconsideration in the light of the observations hereinabove. No costs.