Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a suit filed by Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan and her minor son Raghib Ibrahim Khan (appellants) against Asadullah Khan and others (respondents) seeking declaration of ownership and possession of a residential flat (A/505, NooreJehan Complex) and an office premises. The appellants claimed that the flat was purchased by the husband of the first appellant, Ibrahim Khan, who died intestate, and that the appellants are the legal heirs. They alleged that after the death of Ibrahim Khan, the respondents, who are relatives, illegally dispossessed them from the flat and office. The trial court initially appointed a Court Receiver on 14 and 16 February 2012, but later vacated that order on 13 April 2012, declining to appoint a receiver. The appellants appealed. The High Court examined the evidence, including documents showing ownership and possession, and found that the appellants had a strong prima facie case. The court noted that the respondents had not produced any documents to show their own title or lawful possession. The balance of convenience was in favor of the appellants, as they were the widow and minor son of the deceased owner. The court held that the trial court had erred in vacating the receiver order. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and appointed the Court Receiver to take possession of the suit premises, with directions to hand over possession to the appellants, subject to the appellants furnishing an undertaking to pay mesne profits if ultimately not entitled. The respondents were directed to hand over possession to the Receiver.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appointment of Court Receiver - Prima Facie Case - The court considered the principles for appointment of a receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellants, widow and minor son, claimed to be owners and in possession of the suit flat and office, and alleged illegal dispossession by the respondents - The court held that the appellants had made out a strong prima facie case of ownership and possession, and that the balance of convenience was in their favor - The court appointed the Court Receiver to take possession of the suit premises and directed the respondents to hand over possession to the Receiver, who would then give it to the appellants (Paras 1-36).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in vacating the ad-interim order of appointment of Court Receiver and declining to appoint a Court Receiver to put the appellants back in possession of the suit premises pending disposal of the suit.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Order dated 13 April 2012 set aside. Court Receiver appointed to take possession of suit premises and directed to hand over possession to appellants, subject to appellants furnishing undertaking to pay mesne profits if ultimately not entitled. Respondents directed to hand over possession to Receiver.
Law Points
- Appointment of Court Receiver
- Prima Facie Case
- Balance of Convenience
- Irreparable Loss
- Order 40 Rule 1 CPC
- Section 9 CPC
- Possession
- Dispossession
- Interim Relief
