1. This appeal has arised under Order 43 Rule 1 (s) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 26-7-2001 passed by Sub-Judge-III, Araria, in Title Suit No. 183/2000 whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs appellants prayer for appointment of Receiver as contemplated under Order 40 Rule 1 C. P. C. has been rejected.

2. Admittedly, the plaintiffs and the defendants are coming from the joint ancestors. Plaintiffs have claimed partition in respect of 7/26th share. According to the plaintiffs, as per averments made in the plaint as revealed from the impugned order that there was some difference in passing the joint family property jointly. But it was further claimed that about five years back the plaintiffs and the defendants have separated themselves in mess and business. But the joint family property mostly agricultural lands have not been partitioned by metes and bounds by now although, separate possessions are there. Hence, the joint family property partition was necessary.

3. The defendants have filed written statement and, according to them, there was no unity of title and the joint family had been disrupted long back and the properties had been divided amongst t