LRs cannot succeed on the death of Receiver who is an officer of the Court.

This Second Appeal is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai in A.S. No. 59 of 1956.

The main question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether execution could be allowed in favour of the legal representatives of a deceased Receiver and whether a Receiver could have legal representatives to succeed him. To appreciate the point for decision it may be necessary to mention a few relevant facts in brief On 9th August, 1923, the father of the appellant before me executed a a mortgage in favour of one Solayyappa Naicker for Rs. 200. It was a simple mortgage The mortgagee, Solayappa, was indebted to another Solayappa on a promissory note. The promisee, P. Solayappa, filed a suit on the promissory note and obtained a decree. The suit filed by the said P. Solayappa was O.S.No. 25 of 1935. On 10th August, 1936, the decree-holder P. Solayappa in the promissory note suit O.S.No. 25 of 1935 was appointed Receiver to collect the debts due to his judgment-debtor Among the debts to be collected by the said decree-holder, P. Solayappa, was the mortgage debt due by the father of present appellant under the mortgage executed on 9th August, 1923. In order to collect the said debts under the authority given to him as Receiver in O.S. No. 25 of 1935 the said Receiver P. Solayappa filed O.S.No 338 of 1936 on the file of the District Munsiff’s Court, Sattur, to enforce the mortgage and bring the property to sale. The preliminary decree in the mortgage suit filed by the Receiver was passed on 9th December, 1935, and the final decree on 22nd August, 1940. This Receiver, Solayappa, died in February, 1941. Thereafter on 18th June, 1943, one Venkitaswamy Naicker, the son of Solayappa, the Receiver filed an execution petition to execute the mortgage decree and for sale of the mortgage property. On 8th October, 1943, the execution petition was rejected on the ground that this Venkitaswami Naicker had no locus standi to prefer the execution petition. Subsequently, on 2nd July, 1946, another execution petitition was filed by one Naranappa Naicker, the brother of Venkitaswami Naicker, the latter having apparently died. This execution petition was also rejected without notice to the judgment-debtor on 1st November, 1946. A further execution petition was filed by the said Naranappa Naicker on 22nd October, 1949, and it was also rejected on 24th February, 1950, for the non-production of the order appointing Naranappa, a Receiver in the suit O.S. No. 25 of 1935 in place of the previous Receiver who had died long ago. Another execution, petition E.P. No. 134 of 1953, out of which the present appeal has arisen, in the suit O.S. No. 338 of 1936 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court at Sattur, was filed on 22nd August, 1952, by Naranappa for two reliefs, viz., (1) to declare the second defendant a major, and (2) to direct the sale of the mortgage property. It transpired on 12th January, 1953, Naranappa obtained an order in his favour appointing him as a Receiver and produced the same in Court. Objection was taken by the second defendant that the execution petition, dated 22nd August, 1952, was barred by limitation. The second defendant, the appellant before me, preferred an appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai. His contention was that without an order of appointment neither Venkitaswamy, the previous applicant, nor Naranappa the subsequent applicant could maintain any execution petition and that the three petitions filed prior to E.P. No. 134 of 1953 were all petitions not in accordance with law and that they could not have the effect of saving limitation for the execution petition filed on 22nd August, 1952. The further contention raised was that the appointment of P. Solayappa as Receiver did not have the effect of an assignment of the mortgage debt in favour of the Receiver so appointed. The third contention raised was that the appointment of Naranappa as