https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313728 The HC upheld the appointment of a receiver in a partition suit involving joint family property, emphasizing the need to prevent further deterioration and potential waste of assets. The court allowed the application by alleged trustees, not initially parties to the suit, under Order 40, Rule 1 CPC, recognizing their interest in property preservation. It rejected appointing any involved party as a receiver due to existing conflicts and sought a neutral third party, granting time for parties to suggest candidates. The decision underscores judicial discretion in appointing receivers to protect property interests in partition disputes. en-us Tue, 07 Sep 1948 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:43:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313728 The HC upheld the appointment of a receiver in a partition suit involving joint family property, emphasizing the need to prevent further deterioration and potential waste of assets. The court allowed the application by alleged trustees, not initially parties to the suit, under Order 40, Rule 1 CPC, recognizing their interest in property preservation. It rejected appointing any involved party as a receiver due to existing conflicts and sought a neutral third party, granting time for parties to suggest candidates. The decision underscores judicial discretion in appointing receivers to protect property interests in partition disputes. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Sep 1948 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313728