Balki Lal vs Surendra Nath Ray

Das, J.—These appeals arise out of suits instituted by the respondent Surendra Nath Roy who was appointed a Receiver in a certain action before the learned Subordinate Judge.

Two questions arise in appeal, first, whether the Receiver was competent to sue in respect of rent which had accrued due prior to his appointment, and, secondly whether the Court below was bound to add a person as party defendant to these rent suits to whom, it is alleged, the tenants paid rent in good faith. The action in which the Receiver was appointed was an action between the auction purchaser and the infant son of the previous landlord whose estate was purchased by the auction-purchaser. It seems to me that the Receiver was the only person who could sue in respect of rent whether it accrued due prior to his appointment or subsequent to his appointment. If he was not the person who was entitled to bring these suits then there was no other person because the title of the auction-purchaser was disputed by the minor son of the previous landlord and the title of the minor son was itself disputed by the auction-purchaser. There are passages in Woodroffee''s book on Receivers which clearly establish the proposition on which the respondents rely. The learned Vakil relies upon Ganpati Singh v. Mt. Sachi Ojhain (1917) P.H.C.C. 311=42 I.C. 785. That was a case which was decided on its own facts and I am not prepared to take the view that that case must decide the dispute between the parties in this case. The only other point is whether the learned Sub. Judge was bound to make the minor son of the previous proprietor a party to the action. The defendants took the plea that they raid the rent in good faith to the previous landlord. The learned Dt. Judge has come to the conclusion first that there was no evidence that the rent was paid, and, secondly, that if it was paid it was not raid in good faith. S. 177 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act applies when a right is claimed by or on behalf of a third person. In this case it is not suggested that the right to receive payment was claimed by or on behalf of the third person. It is quite true that the tenants took the plea that this third person was entitled to receive the rent, but that does not bring into operation section 177 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. In my opinion the decision of the learned Dt. Judge was right and must be affirmed. I would dismiss these appeals with costs.

Adami, J.

I agree.