The appointment of a receiver is a harsh remedy that should be granted only in extreme cases where the interest of the person seeking the appointment is exposed to manifest peril.

( 1 ) THIS application is filed by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Order 40 Rule I read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the suit properties. According to the plaintiffs after the filing of the present suit they have got some letter written by the original Defendant No. 1 Anand Prakash Goel and it indicates that defendant No. I Anand Prakash Goel has divided various shops as well as profits from the said shops between his sons, defendants 2 and 3, in exclusion of the plaintiffs.

( 2 ) THE said deceased defendant No. 1 Anand Prakash Goel has executed a Will plaintiffs, defendants 2 and: 3 are acting against the interests of the HUF and, therefore, it is proper and necessary to appoint a Receiver.

( 3 ) THE claim of the plaintiffs is resisted by the defendants by filing their reply. They contended that shop Nos. 109 and 110, Palika Bazar, New Delhi are not the subject matter of the suit. As regards shop at Kamal Bazar it is the contention of the defendants that they were owned by defendant No. 1 Anand Prakash Goel and that the same were not joint family property. The shop Nos. 824 and 825, Nai Sarak, Delhi were never the joint family property. The District Magistrate of Dehradun had cancelled the licence of the petrol pump and the landlord on whose land the said petrol pump was established had also terminated the lease in favour of Bharat Petroleum. Thus, the said petrol pump business is not sold away by any of the defendants. On the contrary the cancellation of the agency was challenged by the defendants and others before the Supreme Court but they did not succeed in the same. They contended that they have not committed any act of either misappropriating the joint family property or having acted in any way detrimental to the joint family interest and, therefore, there are no grounds for appointment of a receiver.

( 4 ) PLAINTIFFS are son, daughter and widow of Suresh Kumar. Suresh Kumar was the son of original defendant No. 1 Anandprakashgoelanddefendantno. 4sundri Devi. Defendant No. 2 Virender Kumar and defendant No. 3 Ravinder Kumar are real brothers of said Suresh Kumar. The plaintiffs have filed the suit to get partition and separate possession of their share by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs have described the immovable properties and movable properties in Schedule a and Schedule b respectively annexed to the plaint.

( 5 ) PLAINTIFFS are admittedly out of possession of the suit property on the date of the suit. Defendants 1,3 and 4 have contested the claim of the plaintiffs by filing their written statement and they contended that there was no joint family business assuch and there were some partnership businesses of the partnerships entered into under the provisions of the Indian Partneship Act between some members of the Hindu joint family. The plaintiffs have also admitted the existence of partnership businesses and partnerships but they have falsely alleged that the said partnership businesses are joint family businesses. It is further contended by the defendants that, as a matter of fact, there was disruption of the joint Hindu family in the year 1964 and a memorandum of partition was effected on 17. 4. 1964 and as per the said memorandum of partition and the actual partition was effected and the members of the joint Hindu family were divided into four groups and various properties were given to those four groups separately by leaving some properties as of the joint ownership of group Nos. 1 to 3 and each of these groups Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was getting the share of the income of the said properties which were kept in common and joint between group Nos. 1 to3. But again those properties which were kept joint between group Nos. 1 to 3 were partitioned between the three groups. Thus, on the date of the suit the members of the joint Hindu family were already separated and the plaintiffss and defandants 1 to Kumar were entitled to share and in