How can the receiver make the best possible use of this land?
Answers
Explanation:
Which land are you talking about
However, the discretion is not absolute, arbitrary or unregulated. The expression “just and convenient” does not mean the appointment is based on the whims and wishes of the judge on any grounds which stand against equity.
How does the court decide whether to appoint a receiver or not?
Court has to keep the following principles in mind before appointing a receiver:
Appointment of a receiver is a discretionary power.
It is a protective relief to the plaintiff. The object is to protect and preserve the disputed property till the time the suit is pending in the court.
A receiver should not be appointed unless the plaintiff shows prima facie that he has a strong case against the defendant and it is more than likely that he will succeed in the suit.
Appointment of a receiver is one of the hardest remedies as it deprives the defendant of his right to possession before the final decree. Therefore, the
court should not resort to it merely on the ground that it will do no harm. There should be strong apprehension that there is a danger to the property or the plaintiff will be in worse of a situation if the appointment of a receiver is delayed.
The court should appoint a receiver only when there is a possibility of wrong or injury. Also, if it is shown that the subject matter is not in the possession of any of the parties and it is in the common interest of both the parties to appoint a receiver for the protection and preservation of the property.
The court should look at the conduct of the party who makes the application for appointment of a receiver. The party should come to the court with clean hands and their conduct should be such that they are not disentitled to this equitable relief.
The above principles were introduced by the Madras Court in the case of T. Krishnaswamy Chetty vs C. Thangavelu Chetty And Ors., AIR 1955 Mad 430. These principles are now well established in the Indian jurisprudence.