( 1 ) THIS application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1-2 and Order 40 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code for appointment of a receiver with the direction to assume possession of the property in dispute and then to hand over the same to the plaintiff. Relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over the possession of the property in suit to the plaintiff has also been claimed.

( 2 ) IN brief the facts of the case as are apparent on record are that on the basis of agreement to sell dated 14. 9. 90 entered into between Shri Charanjit Singh Rekhi and his wife Smt Manjit Kaur Rekhi, herein-after called respondent- defendant and Shri Hari Mohan Sharma and others, hereinafter REFERRED TO as the plaintiffs-applicants. Shri Hari Mohan Sharma and others filed a suit for specific performance praying for a decree for specific performance against the defendant seeking direction to the defendant to specifically perform the agreement dated 14. 9. 90 and transfer the possession of property in village Narsinghpur in Haryana and village Ghitorni in Delhi and a decree for recovery of Rs 10 lakhs for damages has also been claimed. In this suit, which is still pending, this application for appointment of a receiver and for handing over possession of the property has been filed by the plaintiffs-applicants alleging therein that the plaintiffs have already paid Rs. l,01,00,000. 00 as sale consideration and that now the respondents-defendants are trying to band over possession of land to somebody else to create complications. It would be just and convenient that a receiver of the property in suit be appointed to take possession of the property and make inventory and then to hand over the same to the plaintiff. The property is to be preserved to prevent unnecessary complication.

( 3 ) MR Arun Mohan Senior Advocate, counsel for the applicants argued that the respondents-defendants took a loan from Punjab and Sind Bank, Green Park branch New Delhi against the said property and title deeds were deposited with the bank. They could not repay the loan amount which necessitated the Punjab and Sind Bank to file a suit for recovery of Rs. 42,06,676. 02 which was decreed on 5. 2. 85 against the respondents-defendants. Punjab and Sind Bank filed execution (Ex- 32/85) by which they sought sale of the property for recovery of their dues. Ultimately vide order dated 1. 8. 86 Shri T. S. Ahuja Manager of the Punjab and Sind Bank and S. Kanwaijit Singh (brother of Smt Manjit Kaur Rekhi ) were directed to advertise the property for sale. The sale could not materialise though efforts were made by the Joint Receivers for that purpose. Punjab and Sind Bank approached plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiff offered Rs 6 lakhs to Punjab and Sind Bank in October, 89. Accepting the offer of the respondents-defendants the plaintiffs entered into the agreement on 4. 9. 90 for transfer of the said property. A sum of Rs 3 lakh was paid to respondents- defendants by the plaintiff and later on the balance amount was also paid to Punjab and Sind Bank. The plaintiffs have been and are ready to perform their part of the obligation under the agreement. They have paid the entire money and they have prima facie case to get the possession of the property. He cited a decision of this court reported in AIR 1980 DELHI 140, wherein, in a suit for specific performance, this court directed the delivery of possession to the. plaintiff and that order was upheld by the Supreme Court. According to learned counsel the fact remains that but for the plaintiff s money (Rs 98 lakhs) in execution proceedings the court would have ordered auction of the property and the defendants could have had no objection.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents-defendants countered the arguments of Mr Arun Mohan, and submitted that the decree in favour of Punjab and Sind Bank was not a mortgage decree. The property in suit was never mortgaged with the bank and th