Krishnammal vs N. Krishna and Others

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.—The first respondent-mortgagee filed a petition u/s 69-A(2) of the Transfer of Property Act, O.P. No. 331 of 1954

- and obtained an order appointing a receiver of the income of the mortgaged property. Subsequently, he filed an application (Application No.

1458 of 1955 in the said O.P. No. 331 of 1954) praying that directions may be given to the receiver to sell the mortgaged property by public

auction. This application was opposed by the mortgagors inter alia on the ground that the application was not competent. The objection, however,

does not appear to have been pressed properly. The aspect, which was urged before the learned Judge, appears to have been that O.P. No. 331

of 1954 was no longer pending and therefore no interlocutory application could be taken in the said O.P. Whatever may be the merits of this

objection, there can be no doubt whatever that the other objection, which was raised on behalf of the mortgagors that the Court has no jurisdiction

to make the order, is well-founded. The receiver appointed u/s 69-A is a special receiver appointed for a particular purpose, He has not got the

status or the powers of a receiver appointed under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, pending a regular suit. Indeed Section 69-A(2)

expressly says that a receiver appointed by the Court shall be deemed to have been duly appointed by the mortgagee. The powers of the receiver

are mentioned in the subsequent sub-sections of Section 69-A. There is no provision in Section 69-A, or any other section of the Transfer of

Property Act, or in the Code of Civil Procedure, under which a receiver appointed for a limited purpose u/s 69-A could sell the mortgaged

property. The application of the first respondent was therefore misconceived and incompetent and ought to have been dismissed. The appeal is

allowed. The first respondent''s application- Application No. 1458 of 1955-is dismissed with costs. There will be no order as to costs in the

appeal.

This order of ours dismissing the first respondent''s application will not in any way prevent him from exercising such rights as he may have u/s 69

of the Transfer of Property Act.