A plaintiff applying for the appointment of a Receiver must show prima facie that he has a strong case and good title to the property or a special equity in his favour and that the property in the hands of the defendent is in danger of being wasted.

JUDGMENT : - These are two connected applications filed in a pauper suit, C.S. No.99 of 1954, for (a) interim maintenance and (b) appointment of a Receiver.

2. The facts are: The properties which constitute the subject-matter of this suit, viz., houses bearing door Nos.80, 81, 82 and 83 in Edapalayam Street and No.5, Rangapillai Garden St. (Kondi-thope), Park Town, Madras, and other properties originally belonged or were acquired out of the assets left by the late Ramaswami Naidu. This Ramaswami Naidu died in December 1905, surviving him his second wife by name Salammal and a son by name Govindarajulu Naidu.

The plaintiff Muniammal is the widow of that Govindarajulu Naidu who died in 1918. This Govindarajulu Naidu was also survived by another wife by name Amirthavalli Ammal. This plaintiff bore a child to this Govindarajulu Naidu which died after birth even before Govindarajulus death. Salammal died in 1937. Amirthavalli Ammal also bore no issue to Govindarajulu Naidu.

The second defendant in this suit, Janardana Naidu along with one P.B. Narayanaswami Naidu are the next reversioners of the deceased Govindarajulu Naidu.

3. Ramaswami Naidu is stated to have executed a will dated 21-11-1903, which was duly registered and probated, in and by which he is stated to have appointed Govindarajulu as his sole executor and provided among other things that his widow Salammal and Govindarajulu Naidu should enjoy the income from the immoveable properties left by him and that in case Govindarajulu died leaving issues they were to take the properties absolutely.

Salammal was given right of residence and maintenance.

4. I have just stated that Govindarajulu Naidu died in 1918 and this Govindarajulu Naidu during his lifetime mortgaged premises Nos.80 and 81, Edapalayam St. along with some other properties for certain debts binding on the estate of Ramaswami Naidu. On the death of Govindarajulu Naidu the plaintiff along with her co-widow Amirthavalli Ammal and her mother-in-law Salammal executed a mortgage on 16-7-1919, in favour of one Ramanuja Chetti for discharge of a prior mortgage dated 16-8-1918.

The two widows subsequently borrowed Rs.2400 on the security of No.82, Edapalayam Street for discharge of other debts binding upon the estate.

5. The plaintiff filed C.S. No.275 of 1932 on the file of this Court against her mother-in-law and her co-widow for maintenance. This was obviously a move to defraud Ramanuja Chetti. On the motion of Ramanuja Chetti, to protect his rights, the reversioner the second defendant herein was also impleaded. The properties were directed to be vested in the Official Trustee who was directed to discharge the mortgage of Ramanuja Chetti for a sum of Rs.4100 as he gave up his entire interest.

6. This debt was not discharged and the mortgagee Ramanuja Chetti got the permission of the Court to file a suit upon his mortgage and filed C.S. No.178 of 1944 impleading the plaintiff, her co-widow and the Official Trustee. Salammal, it should be remembered, had died in 1937. The plaintiff contended among other things in that suit that the mortgage was not binding on her. After adduction of evidence the Court held that the mortgage was fully supported by consideration and passed preliminary and final decrees. The properties Nos.80, 81 and 82 of Edapalayam Street were brought to sale in the auction held by the Official Referee and the successful auction purchaser was the first defendant herein, and the sale was confirmed in his name.

7. The plaintiff has then obviously set up one P.B. Narayanaswami Naidu and the second defendant herein, viz., the next reversioners, to institute C.S. No.273 of 1945 for a declaration that the mortgage decree in C.S. No.178 of 1944 was not binding on them and for other reliefs. This plaintiff was impleaded as the first defendant in that suit. The auction purchaser was also subsequently impleaded as a party to that suit.

The suit was compromised and according to the compromise decree the auction pur