The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of a receiver in a partition suit should be based on proof of waste or mismanagement, and not solely on the filing of the suit for partition.

Beasley, C.J.

1. These are appeals from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat appointing a Receiver in a suit for partition of a Marumakkathayam tarwad This suit was filed in November 1933 three months after the Madras Marumakkathayam Act (22 of 1934) which gives a right of the members of such a tarwad to claim partition, came into force. There are 222 members in this tarwad which is divided into three main sub-branches. The plaintiffs, eleven in number, belong to a sub-branch of one of the sub-branches, itself a partible unit under the Act They sue for partition of their share. There are four schedule properties, namely, ABC and D. The A schedule properties were under the compromise in O.S. No. 31 of 1887 allotted to the three main sub-branches of the tarwad for the purpose of providing food. etc. These properties were leased to tenants from whom rents were got and possession of the properties was given to the respective sub-branches. The B schedule properties are properties held on Kanom tenure and the common Karnawan of the main tarwad held these properties in order to collect the rents and meet certain common expenses. The G schedule properties consist of family temples; and the D schedule properties were set apart for a chatram the upkeep of a choultry for poor Brahmins and others. The karnawan of one of the main branches consisting of Defendants 1 to ti9 held these properties and managed the chatram. Up to June 1933 the provious karnawan who belonged to the main sub-branch of which the plaintiffs is a sub branch was-the common karnawan but he then died and was succeeded by defendant 1 as acommon karnawan who belonged to the-main sub-branch consisting of defendents 1 to 69 As before stated, the suit was filed only four to five months after this succession and at the time of the filing of the suit a temporary injunction was obtained restraining defendant 1 from granting renewals of the kanom-leases. On 5th March of this year an application to appoint a Receiver was made to the Sub-Court and after counter affidavits were filed by defendant 1 and others the application was-hoard on 20th March and a decision was-given on 7th March appointing a legal, practitioner receiver On 20th March an adjournment had been asked for by defendant 1, but this was not granted; bufe having regard to the fact that all the evidence on defendant ls side was presented to the Court, defendant 1 does not seem to me to have been prejudiced by the refusal of that application. With regard to the A schedule properties, the-learned Subordinate Judge accepts the-plaintiffs contention that there was an unequal division of the property in 1887. With regard to the 2? schedule-properties, he finds that the karnawan has not been paying the cists to Government which had been allowed to fall into arrears. As a matter of fact it stated that these arrears only amounted to about Rs. 500, out of a total cist to Government of Rs 8,000 at the time when the order of the lower Court was-made. With regard to the D schedule properties which the plaintiff claimed we not trust property as the trust at the most was a private trust and revocable, the learned Judge finds that at the most it could only be a private-trust and that in any circumstances there would be a large balance of income over and above what would be needed for the purpose of the trust. Although allegations were made against defendant 1 with regard to mismanagement, there is no finding at all that there has been any mismanagement except as regards his having kept the Government revenue in arrears. With regard to this, I am unable to see that there has been any neglect of duty by defendant 1 in this respect because it appears that, the kanom tenants were under a contract between themselves and the tarwad to pay the Government revenue and it seems that defendant 1 had great difficulty in getting them to make these payments and indeed had to request Government to take coercive action against them.