Madan Mohan Prasad J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff - appellants against an order refusing to appoint a receiver in a suit for partition.

2. According to the plaintiffs, they and the defendants are the descendents of one Gaju Kumar who had two sons, Chanchal Kumar and Bajit Lal Kumar. Chanchal had a son Medni whose widow is plaintiff no. 1 and their daughters are plaintiffs 2 to 4. Chanchal had another son Tilakdhari whose sons and daughters are defendants 1 to 5.

On the other hand Bajit Lal Kumar's widow was one Bujhawati whose sons and daughters are defendants 6 to 9. It is said that Medni had separated in mess and residence as well as status from the other members of the family long before 1956 and the widow of Bajit and his sons and daughters were also messing and residing separately. The joint family of the descendants of Gaju Kumar had considerable properties. After Medni's death the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 have been cultivating separately portions of joint family land and have been appropriating the usufruct and the remaining properties in joint management. The widow of Bajit and defendant no. 6 were allotted a portion of the joint family property for their maintenance. There was, however, no partition by metes and bounds and the plaintiffs and defendant first party are in joint possession as tenants in common since the life time of Medni Kumar, defendant no. 1 being the senior most member of the family has been managing the properties, but for some time past he has been mismanaging the same and in collusion with others transferred portions of the joint properties and was doing other acts of bad faith. Hence the suit.

3. An application under Order 40 Rule 1 and section 94 of the Code of Civil procedure was filed with the allegation that defendant no. 1 was transferring the joint properties and appropriating the consideration himself, that he was getting the name of the defendants first party recorded in the recent survey in respect of larger share than they were entitled to, thereby reducing the plaintiff's share, that he was trying to create wrong entries in the survey records, that he was doing other acts of bad faith, for instance, appropriating a larger share of the income, that he was trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the lands which were in their cultivating possession for the sake of convenience, that he was not giving accounts to the plaintiffs and was misappropriating the property, that the property is in danger of being wasted, that he was trying to change the physical features of the lands, that he was mismanaging the properties and doing these acts because of the stringed feeling between them and the plaintiffs.

4. The defendant no. 1 filed a petition showing cause against the appointment of receiver where in it is stated that some of the lands in suit are in possess son of third parties who have been recorded in the survey, that Medni had separated in 1943 from Tilak dhari's sons and by an amicable partition, Medni having no son had taken 1/4 share in the properties and given 3/4 share to defendants 1 to 3 and since then the parties have been in possession accordingly. It is said that in the revisional survey the parties have been recorded accordingly. It is denied that there was any family settlement and parties were allowed to be in cultivating possession of the lands for the sake of convenience. It is also said that Bajit Lal had separated from Chanchal in 1912, that, the family had a very small area of ancestral lands and Tilakdbari had, out of his separate funds, acquired some property which had been maliciously included in the suit properties. Allegations regarding misappropriation, mismanagement etc. has been denied.

5. The defendants second party, the sons and daughters of Bljit-also filed a show cause petition. According to them, Chanchal Kumar died in 1942 in a state of jointness with Bajit Lal Kumar who died in 1946. It said that in the year 1952 due to differences in the f