Appointment of Receiver is in discretion of the court.

P. Sathasivam, J.

The above original side appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.11.2004 made in Original Application No.309 of 2002, in and by which the learned Judge appointed one Mr. A. Shaik Pareeth, Advocate, Chennai as Receiver, to take charge of the suit properties.

2. The brief facts which are required for disposal of the above appeal alone are stated hereunder:

(a) The first defendant in CS.No.306 of 2002 is the appellant in the above appeal. Respondents in this appeal are plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5. According to the plaintiff R. Sivaprakasam, his father late E. Ramadoss Chetty, died intestate leaving behind him the following as his legal heirs.

(i) Mrs. Mangaleshwari (wife-D2)

(ii) Mrs. R. Rajalakshmi (first daughter – D3)

(iii) R. Sivaprakasam (first son – plaintiff / applicant)

(iv) R. Soundararajan (second son – D1)

(v) R. Nithyakalyani (second daughter – D4)

(vi) R. Santhavalli (third daughter – D5)

(vii) Alamelu Ammal – mother of the deceased Ramadoss Chetty.

The said Alamelu Ammal died on 13.06.1998. Late E. Ramadoss Chetty died intestate on 05.10.1996, without dividing the suit schedule mentioned properties, leaving the plaintiff and defendants as his legal heirs. After the demise of Ramadoss Chetty, the suit properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendants without there being any division by metes and bounds.

(b) According to the plaintiff, late E. Ramadoss Chetty was entitled to 1/3 share; Sivaprakasam (plaintiff) was entitled to 1/3 share and the first defendant Soundararajan being entitled for the remaining 1/3 share. After the demise of Ramadoss Chetty, his 1/3 share devolved on Mrs. Mangaleswari, Rajalakshmi, Nithyakalyani and Santhavalli, each will be entitled 1/21st share. The plaintiff shall be entitled to 8/21 share; first defendant is entitled 8/21 share in each of the properties and the reminder shall devolve upon the sisters and mother of the plaintiff, viz., defendants 2 to 5.

(c) The plaintiff has been demanding division of suit properties by metes and bounds, since it would be no longer possible and feasible after the demise of his father to maintain the joint family and the status on account of divergent views among the parties hereto. The first defendant though agreeable for partition, has started acting detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff as well as other joint owners of the suit properties by misappropriating the income derived from the suit properties. Hence, the present suit for partition.

3. Pending the suit, the plaintiff filed Application Nos.309 and 310 of 2003, to appoint the applicant / plaintiff as party Receiver for realisation, management, protection, preservation and improvement of the property, the collection of the rents and profits thereof as well as for interim injunction restraining the first respondent / defendant (appellant herein), his men, servants, agents or anybody claiming through him from alienating or dealing with the suit properties either by way of sale, mortgage, lease or development or otherwise.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the plaintiff / applicant has once again reiterated the same thing what he has stated in the plaint. The first respondent / first defendant has misappropriated funds realised from the suit properties and not rendering true and proper accounts and the expenses incurred in relation to the estate of their father. It is also stated that he is acting detrimental to the interest of other sharers. It is further stated that the first respondent is trying to alienate the suit properties.

5. A common counter affidavit was filed by the contesting first respondent R. Soundarrajan, wherein he has stated that he is not disputing the entitlement of the share of the parties, however, denied the allegation of misappropriation and mismanagement.

6. The other respondents have filed a counter affidavit, which we are not concerned for the present.

7. The learned single Judge, aft