( 1 ) THIS first appeal from order is directed against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of faizabad on 6-9-1960 in miscellaneous case No. 25 of 1960 appointing the defendant-appellant receiver of the property in suit and directing him to furnish security for Rs. 15,000/-for accounting and for making good any loss to the estate in case a decree was passed against him.

( 2 ) ONE Smt. Sudama Devi filed a suit in forma pauperis against the defendant-appellant in which she claimed a decree for possession over the properties detailed in the plaint, inter alia, on the ground that she was the only daughter and sole hear of Ram Samujh, the deceased brother of defendant-appellant, that all the properties, which were subject-matter of the suit, were properties left by deceased Ram Samujh, that the defendant had no right to possess them and she should be put in possession of the same. She also prayed for being declared a pauper and being allowed to sue in forma pauperis.

( 3 ) ON the same date she also made an application under Order 39, Rule 7 read with Order 41, rule 1, C. P. C. in which she alleged that the opposite party, on hearing about the application to sue as a pauper, will try to remove the articles so that the applicant may get nothing, and will thus put the applicant to irreparable loss by their removal, concealment or conversion and, therefore, she prayed that the court may be pleased to appoint a Commissioner to inspect and prepare a list of the articles mentioned in the plaint and to preserve the same, till the disposal of the application or the suit. In this application she gave a list of the properties which consisted of a pukka house valued at Rs. 6,000/- and a large number of ornaments and other moveables valued at about Rs. 22,000/ -.

( 4 ) IT appears from the record, that, on this application, the Court was pleased to appoint one Sri ram Samujh Pandey, a lawyer, to prepare an inventory of the properties which were the subject-matter of the suit, but did not pass any order regarding her other prayer. It also appears from the record that the Commissioner could not prepare a list of the properties. However, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant conceded before us that the list of the properties given in the plaint were substantially correct and were found in possess on of the defendant.

( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the proceedings for declaring the plaintiff-respondent a pauper, another application was presented by her on 6-8-1960 in which she alleged that the opposite party was anxious to defeat the claim of the applicant by removing the articles found inside the house and if the articles are removed she will never get back the properties even if a decree is passed in her favour. Consequently she prayed that a Receiver be appointed of the properties in suit which had been found with the defendant. In support of her application, an affidavit was also filed on the same day by her next friend Jokhan Ram in which similar allegations were made that in casa Receiver is not appointed there is great apprehension of the properties being removed or converted beyond recognition.

( 6 ) THE defendant objected to the appointment of a Receiver before the trial court on the ground that he was in possession of the properties and as such the appointment of a Receiver was uncalled for. He admitted that Ram Samujh deceased was a brother of the defendant but he denied that the plaintiff was his daughter. He further alleged that Ram Samujh had died as a member of a joint Hindu family leaving the defendant as sole surviving co-parcener, and the plaintiff had no right to lay any claim on the properties in suit. It is significant to note that, in his objection filed before the trial Court, the defendant, though he contested the right of the plaintiff to file the suit, did not specifically meet her allegation that there was danger of the properties being removed in case a Receiver was not appointed for the same.