Receiver's continuing authority allows summary recovery of possession where occupation arose under a court-supervised lease arrangement.

A receiver appointed over property continues until formally discharged and does not automatically cease merely because a final decree is passed where the decree leaves the receivership intact. Where possession is held under a court-supervised compromise and lease arrangement, the receiver may recover the property on expiry of the term because the occupant's possession remains subject to the court's control. In such circumstances, the court may authorise summary removal through the receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and a separate suit is not necessary where no independent title dispute requires adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the receiver had authority to take possession of the flour mill and dispossess the appellant after the compromise and lease arrangement; (ii) whether the receiver's appointment and powers ceased automatically on the passing of the final decree; and (iii) whether the appellant could be removed only by a regular suit or by a summary order in proceedings through the receiver.

Issue (i): Whether the receiver had authority to take possession of the flour mill and dispossess the appellant after the compromise and lease arrangement.

Analysis: The relevant orders appointed the receiver over the properties of the defendants, and later directions continued that control while reserving the actual running of the mills to further orders of the court. The compromise scheme and the lease executed pursuant to it showed that the appellant was in possession under the receiver and had undertaken to redeliver the mill on expiry of the term. The arrangement was part of the court-supervised management of the estate, not an independent possession inconsistent with the receiver's authority.

Conclusion: The receiver had authority to take possession of the flour mill and to require the appellant to yield possession on expiry of the lease.

Issue (ii): Whether the receiver's appointment and powers ceased automatically on the passing of the final decree.

Analysis: A receiver appointed without a limited tenure does not cease merely because a final decree is passed, especially where the preliminary decree directs continuance until discharge and the final decree does not terminate the receivership or alter those directions. The legal position is that the receiver continues until formally discharged, and the court may continue the receivership after final decree when the circumstances require it.

Conclusion: The receiver did not cease automatically on the passing of the final decree and continued until discharged.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant could be removed only by a regular suit or by a summary order in proceedings through the receiver.

Analysis: Under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court may authorize the receiver to remove a person from possession for the purpose of administration of the property. The appellant was a party to the suit, had taken possession under a court-controlled scheme, and had expressly agreed to surrender possession to the receiver after the term expired. In such circumstances, no separate adjudication of competing title was necessary, and the court could direct the receiver to recover possession summarily.

Conclusion: The appellant could be dispossessed by summary process through the receiver and not only by a separate suit.

Final Conclusion: The order maintaining the receiver's authority and permitting recovery of possession was sustained, and the appellant's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A receiver appointed without a limited term continues until formally discharged, survives a final decree where the decree does not terminate the receivership, and may recover possession summarily from a party who occupied the property under a court-supervised arrangement and agreed to surrender it on expiry of the term.

---