Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010108802026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1830/2026 SRI CHANDRA MOHAN JHA S/O- SRI HARI DEV JHAR/O- MODRINA MANSION, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA VERSUS SRI ALOK GHOSH S/O- SRI KHETRA MOHAN GHOSH R/O- SREENAGAR PATH, LALGANESH, GUWAHATI-34, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R KALITA, MS. M K BROWN,MR J SINGH,MR H AGARWAL Advocate for the Respondent : MR A K RAI, MS. N RAI Linked Case : RFA/73/2019 SRI CHANDRA MOHAN JHA S/O- SRI HARI DEV JHA R/O- MODRINA MANSION SHILLONG. VERSUS SRI ALOK GHOSH Page No.# 2/8 S/O- SRI KHETRAMOHAN GHOSH R/O- SREENAGAR PATH LALGANESH GUWAHATI-34 ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. R KALITA Advocate for : MR A K RAI appearing for SRI ALOK GHOSH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 16.06.2026 Heard Mr. Amanprit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. I.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This application, under Order XL Rule 1, read with Section 151 of the CPC, is preferred by the applicant with the following prayers: (i) To appoint an independent Court Receiver, under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, in respect of the suit property, being land measuring 1 katha 17 lechas, covered by Dag No. 200 of K.P. Patta No. 87 of Revenue village Khanapara, under Mouza Beltola, in the district of Kamrup (M), Assam, along with the structure standing thereupon; (ii) To direct the Court Receiver to immediately take symbolic and/or physical possession of the suit property and prepare an inventory/status report regarding the existing nature and occupation of the property; (iii) To restrain the opposite party/respondent, his agents, servants, associates or any person acting on his behalf from selling, alienating, transferring, Page No.# 3/8 encumbering, parting with possession of, or creating any third-party rights in respect of the suit property during pendency of the connected appeal; (iv) To direct maintenance of complete status quo with regard to title, possession and nature of the suit property during pendency of the connected appeal. 3. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has preferred an appeal being, RFA No. 73/2019, challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati (‘trial Court’, for short), in Title Suit No. 205/2014. Mr. Singh also submits that the dispute in the title suit relates to a plot of land measuring 1 katha 17 lechas, covered by Dag No. 200 of K.P. Patta No. 87 of Revenue village Khanapara, under Mouza Beltola, in the district of Kamrup (M), Assam, along with an unfinished G+3 storied RCC structure standing thereupon, and that the Title Suit No. 205/2014, was filed by the opposite party/respondent on the basis of an alleged agreement, dated 10.10.2013, allegedly executed by the applicant/appellant in favour of the opposite party for a total consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, out of which an alleged payment of Rs. 90,00,000/- in cash was claimed to have been made. Mr. Singh submits that thereafter, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the opposite party herein for specific performance of the said agreement, dated 10.10.2013, and also dismissed the counter-claim filed by the applicant herein and thereby refused to declare right, title and interest of the applicant herein over the suit property, by holding that the applicant’s title had been clouded despite categorical admissions of ownership by the opposite party himself. Mr. Singh further submits that by the impugned judgment and decree, the suit property has virtually been rendered ‘in medio’ i.e. a property presently under occupation and control of a person Page No.# 4/8 whose claim has already been rejected, while the lawful owner has been deprived of effective protection of his proprietary rights pending adjudication of the connected appeal. Mr. Singh also submits that the applicant had purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed No. 1930, dated 05.03.2012, executed by one Upendra Choudhury for valid consideration and thereafter, he had obtained GMDA permission for construction of a G+3 storied structure over the said property and that he is the absolute owner and he was illegally dispossessed from the suit property on 12.05.2014, by the opposite party herein. Mr. Singh further submits that the opposite party has no lawful title document in his favour and the basis of claiming the property has already been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court, and now, the opposite party is attempting to sell or otherwise alienate the suit property and if he succeeds, then it will complicate the subject-matter of the pending appeal, and under such circumstances, Mr. Singh has contended to appoint an independent Court Receiver of the suit property till disposal of the appeal and to allow this application. 3.1. In support of his submissions, Mr. Singh has referred to the following decisions: (i) Rajeshwar Nath Gupta vs. Administrator General and others, reported in AIR 1989 Delhi 179. (ii) T. Krishnaswamy Chetty vs. C. Thangavelu Chetty and others reported in AIR 1955 Mad 430. (iii) Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 488. (iv) Ramakrishna Pillai vs. Susamma Joseph, reported in AIR 1991 Ker 83. Page No.# 5/8 (v) Kashi Math Samsthan and Another vs. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and Another, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 689. (vi) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 648. 4. Per contra, Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the application primarily, on the ground that an appeal has already been heard and there is no question of appointing Court Receiver at this stage, and that it is a fact that the opposite party herein got some of the tenants vacated from the suit premises, but the same was done not with a view of selling or alienating the suit property, and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the application. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through application and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the records of RFA No. 73/2019, and the relevant provisions of law. Also gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 6. It is well settled that appointment of Receiver in an appeal is governed primarily by Order XL Rule 1 of the CPC, which provides that Courts may appoint a Receiver to manage, preserve, or protect a disputed property during pending proceedings which includes appeal, as the Appellate Court is the Court before which the proceeding is pending. The relief is an equitable, discretionary relief/remedy aimed at preventing wash, damage or misappropriation of the property pending final adjudication and the Receiver, so appointed, act as an officer of the Court and impartial between the parties. 7. In T. Krishnaswamy Chetty (supra), the Madras High Court has laid down five principles for appointment of Receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Page No.# 6/8 CPC, which are extracted herein below: (i) Appointment of Receiver is a matter of judicial discretion, exercised to protect rights of the parties and ends of justice when no other adequate remedy exists. (ii) The plaintiff must show strong prima facie case, not just possible case. (iii) There must be real danger or imminent risk of loss, damage or waste to the property. (iv) Generally a Receiver cannot be appointed if it would dispossess a defendant in de facto possession. (v) The Court must consider conduct of the parties seeking appointment. 8. These principles have been approved and followed in various cases by Hon’ble Supreme Court, notably amongst others, in the case of Maharaj Jagat Singh vs. Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh, reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 313, wherein Honb’le Supreme Court has also dealt with the issue of appointment of Receiver, where the issue of preservation of suit property arises. And the said principles are also being followed by different High Courts in a number of decisions. 9. In the case in hand, the subject matter, in respect of which the appointment of the Receiver is being sought for, is a plot of land measuring 1 katha 17 lechas, along with an unfinished G+3 storied RCC structure. In the title suit preferred by the opposite party herein, he has clearly admitted the title of the present applicant over the suit property. But, in spite of such admission, the learned Trial Court in the Title Suit No. 205/2014, declined to declare right, title and interest of the applicant over the suit property, though, however, it had Page No.# 7/8 partly decreed the counter-claim preferred by the applicant herein. And as such, no one is owner of the property, though the opposite party herein has been occupying the same. 10. Though, Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the appointment of the Court Receiver, yet admitted, some of the tenants, who are occupying the suit property have been asked to vacate, and this fact also fortified the apprehension being expressed by the applicant in this application that the opposite party may, at any time, alienate or sell the property, and in such event, the entire appeal would become infructuous. Thus, the submission of Mr. Mazumdar, that the opposite party has not been attempting to alienate or to sell the suit property, left this Court unimpressed. 11. Under the given factual and legal matrix, this Court is of the view that there is an urgent requirement of appointing a Court Receiver of the suit property till the disposal of the connected appeal. 12. Though the arguments in the appeal have been concluded and the judgment has been reserved, yet in view of the submission of Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant that at any time, the opposite party may alienate, sell or dispose of the suit property, this Court is of the view that there is a requirement of preserving the same. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Nazir, in the establishment of learned District Judge, Kamrup(M), Guwahati is appointed as Receiver of the suit property. He shall forthwith take symbolic possession of the suit property and prepare an inventory regarding the existing nature and occupation of the property, and to furnish such inventory before the Registry of this Court within 10 days from today. This would, to the considered opinion of this Court, preserve the suit property from Page No.# 8/8 being alienated or in transferring, encumbering, parting with possession of, or creating any third-party rights. 14. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. 15. The Registry shall forthwith transmit a copy of this order to the Civil Nazir, Office of learned District Judge, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, by a Special Messenger. J U D G E Comparing Assistant