The appointment of a Receiver under Order 40, Rule 1, C. P. C. requires a strong prima facie case, unauthorized dispossession, and acts of waste leading to incompetence, as established in Ch. Rajamma v. P. V. Reddy.

( 1 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram, rejected the appellant s petition for appointment of a Receiver for taking possession of the plaint schedule properties and to manage the same and to deposit the yield in the Court, I. A. No. 237of 1993 in O. S. No. 81 of 1990, by an order passed on 5-1 -1994, which is challenged in this appeal.

( 2 ) THEAPPELLANT s petition forappointment of a Receiver contained an allegation that the respondents had been misusing the schedule properties which were in their possession, and had been committing acts of waste in order to cause wrongful loss to the appellant. The respondents were digging pits and had been interfering with the boundary bunds. It is further alleged that the respondents had been pocketing the yield realised from the suit schedule properties. It is further alleged that the 3rd respondent was a close associate and friend of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and that he had been encouraging them to misuse the possession of the property. Further, according to the appellant, it was no longer safe to allow the property to remain in the possession of the respondents, and therefore it was necessary, according to the appellant, in the interest of justice to appoint a Receiver to take possession of the suit schedule properties and to manage the same until the disposal of the suit.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 filed a counter, which was adopted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and stated that the plaint schedule properties which originally belonged to respondent No. 1 and his wife were sold away to respondent No. 3 under a registered sale deed in March, 1990 for a valuable consideration, by virtue of which itemnos. l and 2 of the plaint schedule properties had been in the possession and enjoyment of respondent No. 3 since then. It is further stated that the respondent No. l did not acquire any movable or immovable property by way of ancestral propertyc. Item No. 3 of the plaint schedule properties was the self- acquired property of respondent No. 1, wh ich was also sold to respondent No. 3.

( 4 ) IT is further contended by respondent no. l that he purchased Ac. 3-89 cents of land in revenue Survey Nos. 114 and 115 of kolamuru, and got the same registered in the name of the appellant. The appellant was only 20 years old at that time and was just attending to agricultural operations. The appellant had no means to purchase the said property out of his own earnings. However, the appellant started enjoy ing the usufruct of the said property exclusively.

( 5 ) FURTHER according to the respondents, it was not true that the plaint schedule properties yielded 30 bags of paddy per acre per crop. The land was of average fertility and the farmers were not getting proper remuneration since 1986 and they were sustaining losses, and therefore, according to the respondents there was no cause for appointing a Receiver forthe purpose, stated by the appellant.

( 6 ) ORDER 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure provides for appointment of receivers. Under Rule 1 of Order 40, the court may be order- (a) appoint a receiver of any property, whether before or after decree; (b) remove any person from the possession or custody of the property; (c) commit the same to the possession, custody or management of the receiver; and (d) confer upon the receiver all such powers, as to bring and defending suits and for the realization management, protection, reservation and improvement of the property, the collection ofthe rents and profits thereof, the application and disposal of such rents and profits, and the execution of documents as the owner himself has, or such of those powers as the Court thinks fit.

( 7 ) THE learned trial Judge took into consideration the decision of the Division bench of this High Court rendered in the case of Ch. Rajamma v. P. V. Reddy, reported in 1993 (2) ALT 154, in which three principles were laid down in paragraph 11, which are as under:"from an analysis of Order 40 Rule (1) of t