B.D.SINGH, J.

1. This appeal by Kamal Chaudhary and Lakhan Chaudhary under Order 43, Rule 1 (S) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) is directed against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code appointing the appellants, who are defendants, as receivers to manage the suit properties till the pendency of the suit.

2. In order to appreciate the points involved in this appeal, it will be necessary to state some material facts. Rajendra Chaudhary, Sat Narain Chaudhary and Sheo Nandan Chaudhary (plaintiffs 1 to 3) instituted Title Suit No. 82 of 1969 alleging, inter alia, that the properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint were joint family properties and, therefore, they prayed for partition of the joint family properties. The relationship of the contesting parties would be apparent from the following genealogical table:-

3. It may be noticed that respondents Nos. 4 to 10 were defendants 4 (ka) to 9 as defendants second party, whereas respondents Nos. 11 to 17 were the intervening defendants. Therefore, in this appeal they are respondents 3rd party.

4. According to plaintiff No. 1, father of plaintiff No. 1 was in clutches of defendants 2 and 3 and the entire properties came under the management of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who are brothers of plaintiff No. 1. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3, in collaboration with other defendants, were making capital out of the income from the suit properties and were making illegal gains completely ignoring the plaintiffs and they were getting nothing out of the income of the joint family properties. In the suit the plaintiffs prayed for the following reliefs.

(a) That the Court below be pleased to pass a decree for partition allotting a separate takhata of 3/16th share in the suit properties by appointed survey knowing pleader commissioner and the plaintiffs be put in possession of the same.

(b) that the court be further pleased to declare that the so called deeds of gift in favour of the defendant 3rd party are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

(c) that a decree for cost of the suit be passed in favour of the plaintiffs;

(d) that any other relief or reliefs the Court under the facts and circumstances of the case may deem fit and proper be granted to the plaintiffs.

The suit properties are mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint, including sudhbharna lands. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an amendment petition for amendment of the plaint, including the schedule attached thereto, which was allowed. After institution of the suit the plaintiffs had also filed an application under order 40, Rule 1 of the Code for appointment of the receiver. A rejoinder thereto was filed by defendants 2 and 3. After the death of defendant No. 1 during the pendency of the suit, another application was filed by the plaintiffs, inter alia mentioning therein that after the death of defendant No. 1 the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants had become strained and the defendants had begun to put all sorts of obstructions and hindrances in the peaceful enjoyment of the joint family properties. Some of the lands of the suit were being cultivated by the bataidars on behalf of the joint family, but the defendants had brought them under clutches, and in collusion with them they were depriving the plaintiffs of the usufructs of the lands. In this application the plaintiffs further stated that the matter with respect to the appointment of receiver was pending, and due to the receiver not having been appointed, the defendants, in collusion with each other as well as with the bataidars and mortgagors, intensified the action of mismanagement and misappropriation of the receipts resulting in destruction of the properties and loss to the plaintiffs. In the suit land in that particular year there had been bumper paddy crops, and if the receiver would not be appointed, the defendants would deprive the plaintiffs of their