JUDGMENT

Iqbal Ahmad, C.J. - This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and arises under the following circumstances : The judgment-debtor appellant is a widow of the family of the respondents. There was a partition amongst the male members of the family of the. respondents sometime back and, in order to provide for the maintenance of the appellant, a village called Bijauli was given to her for her lifetime. It was farther agreed that the respondents will defray the expenses of the marriage of the daughters of the appellant. The respondents, however, committed a breach of this agreement and did not meet the expenses of the marriage of the daughters of the appellant. The appellant then brought a suit against the respondents for Rs. 18,000 on account of the expenses of her daughters' marriage and a decree for Rs. 7000 was passed in her favour by the trial Court. The respondents deposited the decretal amount in the Court below and filed an appeal in this Court. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, a considerable portion of the amount deposited by the respondents was taken away by the creditors of the appellant. The High Court allowed the appeal of the respondents in part and reduced the decretal amount by a sum of Rs. 2200.

2. After the decree of. the High Court, the respondents applied for restitution u/s 144 and the Court below made a decree in their favour for a sum of Rs. 1023. A portion of this decretal amount had been realized by the respondents, but still a sum of about Rs. 700 is alleged to be due to them. For the realization of this amount the respondents applied to the execution Court for the appointment of a receiver of village Bijauli. The appellant objected to the appointment of a receiver. The execution Court, however, overruled the objection of the appellant on the ground that "the objector has not been able to show any law under which the appointment of a receiver can be disallowed." It is against the order of the Court below disallowing the objection of the appellant that the present appeal has been preferred.

3. The appeal came for hearing before two of the Judges constituting the present Bench and the learned Counsel for the appellant then placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Swarup v. Anandi Lal ('36) 23 A. I. R. 1936 All 495 and on an unreported decision of this Court in B. Keshri Chand v. Mt. Mehri Kuer E. F. A. No. 119 of 1937. Both these decisions support the contention of the appellant that in the circumstances of the present case the Court below had no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver of the appellant's property. The Bench hearing the appeal, however, entertained considerable doubt about the accuracy of the decisions and accordingly referred the lease to the present Full Bench. The answer to the question whether Clause (2) of Rule 1 of Order 40 has application only to properties in the possession of third parties or is also applicable to properties in the possession of one of the parties to the litigation, is beset with considerable difficulty and there is considerable divergence of judicial opinion on the point. We consider it advisable under those circumstances that, in order to set the doubt at rest so far as this Court and the Courts subordinate to this Court are con-corned, the rule should be so amended as not to leave any doubt as to the true interpretation of Clause (2) of Rule 1, of Order 40 Civil P. C. In the present case, however, in the view that we take it is not necessary for us to enter into a discussion of the question whether the cases quoted above were or wore not correctly decided. The facts of the present case are such as to render it undesirable at the present stage to justify the drastic step of dispossessing the judgment-debtor-appellant from the property of which she is in possession in lieu of maintenance. If, however, she persists in making default land does not pay the decretal amount in due course it will have to be seriously considered whether or