CPCReceiverSupreme Court of India

Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadi v Narsingsa Bhaskarsa Kabadi

AIR 1961 Supreme Court 107719611 min read
The case in brief30-second read
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.
Principle
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.
Cite this

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

  1. 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.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

- 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."

Cite this

Citation

Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadi v. Narsingsa Bhaskarsa Kabadi AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1077

Reported: 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.