RAMAPRASADA RAO, C.J. :- This appeal directed against the order of Paul J. who, while setting aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam, directed that the respondents do continue in ion of the properties and held that no case had been made for the appointment of a receiver which would result in the dispossession of the properties from the possession of the respondents. In an elaborate judgement, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that, as there were rival claims as to possession of the properties between the appellant, who is rightfully entitled to them under the personal law, and the respondents who claim such a right only through two Wills executed by the husband of the appellant, in order to end the controversy, it would be in the interests of all parties concerned and above all it is just and convenient that the properties are in custodia legis through a receiver appointed by the court. Paul J. held otherwise.

2. One Muthusami died on 19-9-1976, leaving behind him his widow, the appellant, who was the plaintiff in the action. He left behind several properties. The plaintiff's case was that though the properties stood in the name of