AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The only objection to the lower Court''s order, which, in our opinion, merits detailed reference, is that 2nd respondent is ineligible for the
Receivership, because be is guardian of the incapacitated 1st defendant.
No doubt in some English cases Stone v. Wishart 54 E.P. 258 and incidentally in Taylor v. Oldham (1882) 1 Jac. 527 the proposed Receiver
was held, disqualified for that reason. But there is, so far as we have been shown, no inflexible rule; and several instances of the contrary view
being taken are referred to at page 951, Seton on Judgments and Orders, (7th Edition, Volume II). In Rukmani Ammal v. Advocate-General of
Madras 31 Ind. Cas. 908 a Bench of this Court refused, independently of the English authorilies, to recognise the rule as binding. The whole
circumstances of the particular case must be looked at, and the Appellate Court will not in any case interfere lightly with an appointment, unless a
general principle can be shown to have been infringed. Cookes v. Cookes 2 De G.J. & S. 526.
Looking at the circumstances, we do not think that reason has been shown for interference. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.