Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadi v. Narsingsa Bhaskarsa Kabadi
Rule established
Appointment of a receiver is a drastic remedy and must be exercised sparingly. A receiver should not be appointed merely because the property is disputed; there must be danger of loss or dissipation requiring protective intervention.
Facts
- Property was in dispute between the parties in a civil suit
- One party sought appointment of a receiver over the disputed property
- The applicant argued that since the property was disputed, a neutral receiver should manage it during litigation
Issue
- Whether the mere existence of a dispute over property justifies appointment of a receiver.
Held
- Appointment of receiver is a drastic remedy: it dispossesses the existing holder pending trial
- It must be exercised sparingly and only where necessary
- The mere fact that property is disputed is not sufficient ground
- There must be danger of loss, waste, dissipation, or destruction
- The court must satisfy itself that no less drastic remedy (e.g., injunction) would be adequate
Ratio Decidendi
Receiver appointment requires more than a dispute: there must be demonstrated danger of loss or dissipation. The remedy is drastic and must be exercised sparingly.
How to use it in an exam
- Key line: "In Kashinathsa Yamosa (1961), the Supreme Court held that receiver appointment is a drastic remedy exercised sparingly. Disputed property alone does not justify appointment; there must be danger of loss or dissipation."
Source
Source: AIR 1961 SC 1077; verified via standard CPC references
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.