The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of a receiver can be a proper remedy for enforcing directions in a decree and ensuring compliance with a scheme, and it can be just and convenient under the Civil Procedure Code.

Ramesam, J.

1. These are appeals under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam in E.A. Nos. 11 and 84 of 1930 in O.S. No. 125 of 1921 which was a suit filed for the framing of a scheme for the temple of Sri Thiagarajaswami at Tiruvarur in East Tanjore District. The matter came up to the High Court before Spencer, J. and myself and a scheme was framed. Under Clause (8) of the scheme the trustee of each Kattalai was directed to submit a budget to the treasurer of his expected receipts and expenditure and the treasurer was directed to consolidate the budgets of all the Kattalais and place them before the Board for their approval and orders. Under Clause (13) of the scheme the trustees of the respective Kattalais were directed to hand over all the cash proceeds of their property to their treasurer who had to keep them in a safe within the temple premises, enter them in a book to be kept with separate pages for each Kattalai for that purpose and furnish the trustees with receipts for the same and be responsible for their safe custody, and the treasurer was directed to put the trustees in funds from the amounts in his hands to their respective credits whenever they apply for disbursements according to the budget. In pursuance of the scheme the President of the: Board of Control insisted on the trustees of the Kattalais sending complete budgets of receipts and expenditure and on their failing to do so he applied for attachment of their property or their arrest. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition. There was an appeal to the High Court. That appeal came on before this Bench and it was held on an objection that the: decree in the original suit was not an executable one, that the directions in Clauses (8) and (13) of the scheme were executable: and not merely declaratory. Our judgment was reported in Ratnanatham Chettiar v. Balayee Ammal (1927) 27 L.W. 32. The present application is by the Board of Control acting through their President for the appointment of a receiver for the properties under the control of 12th defendant who is the trustee of Abisheka and Annadhanr. Kattalais for the purpose of carrying out the duties which the trustees have to perform under Clauses (8), (13) and (16) of the scheme, alleging default on the part of the trustees in regard to their duties. The petitions were actually pressed before the Subordinate judge in respect of only Clause (13). The complaint made against the trustee is that he had persistently not been making remittances, nor sending accounts, showing collections from Fasli 1338 downwards. The Subordinate Judge found that the appellant was guilty of continuous and persistent defiance not only of the directions in the scheme to make remittances of money collections but also the orders of Court made from time to time and that he paid only a small portion of the money received by him. In paragraph 6 of the judgment there is a table showing the actual income and remittances to the treasurer. The appellant admitted on 2nd September, 1929, that he received a sum of nearly Rs. 5,000 between 29th March and 23rd August, 1929, but did not remit it to the treasurer and spent it himself. Other defaults are mentioned by the Subordinate Judge in the same paragraph. Similar complaints were made in 1928 and also in 1929. Nothing further was done on the ground that an undertaking was given by him (vide Exs. E and E-l). In the present petition he was required to produce all the accounts. He has not done so. The Board of Control made a rule that he should send monthly budgets, but this was not done. Accordingly the Subordinate Judge appointed a receiver. It is against this order that the present appeals are filed.

2. In appeal the point strenuously pressed is that the appointment of of receiver is not a proper remedy, on various technical grounds. First, it is argued that the Board of Control was not a party to the decree it was a creation of