K.L. Shrivastava, J.- l. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18-7-1989 passed by the District Judge, Indore in Probate Case No. 12 of 1989 whereby the respondent's application under order 40, rule 1 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for Short the Code') for appointment of receiver in respect of the subject-matter of the litigation has' been allowed.

2. Circumstances giving rise to the appeal are these. The deceased Dakhabai, widow of Narayanlal Jindal died on 5-1-89 at Indore. She owned considerable property, movables (loans, rents and deposits) and immovables.

3. The respondent Govind Agrawal, who is the son of Narayanlal Agrawal, the brother of the deceased Dakhabai Jindal filed a petition on 17-4-89 under section 376 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Succession Act') for grant of Probate or Letters of Administration on the basis of the will dated 9-12-88 alleged to be executed by the deceased Dakhabai.

4. The application under the Succession Act was opposed by the present appellant Omprakash Jindal on the ground that the will is a forged one. According to him, Nathulal Jindal was his natural father but Narayanlal Jindal, the husband of Dakhabai and the brother of the said Nathulal had adopted him.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased Dakhabai was resident of Indore and prior to her death she had been hospitalised here and even on the date of the alleged will she was under treatment and there are several circumstances indicating that the will is a suspicious document, one of the circumstances being that Dakhabai owned not five but six houses but in the will it has been mentioned that she owned only five houses.

6. It has also been submitted that for the first time it was on 21-1-89 that by advertisement in the Hindi Daily 'Dainik Bhaskar', Indore that the present respondent laid a claim to the property of Dakhabai. The advertisement though by a counsel, it has not been expressly stated therein that Dakhabai had executed any will as such in favour of the respondent. It has further been urged that in the publication dated 16-2-89, there is reference to a registered will but the will in question is not a registered one. The fact that the mother of the respondent Govind Agrawal had lodged a criminal complaint (No. 614/82) against Dakhabai and a charge under section 406 I.P.C. was framed against her, has also been urged as a circumstance militating against the case set up by him.

7. Now as to the case of adoption set up by the appellant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the fact that the appellant is the son of Narayanlal Jindal is quite clear as several years prior to the present controversy which is of the year 1989, on the death of the said Narayanlal Jindal in 1979, Pagdi was tied on the appellant's head and in his marriage invitation which is of the year 1983, he has been shown as the son of the said Narayanlal. It is further urged that on 5-2-88 Rs. 31,000/- were placed ' in the fixed deposit in the joint name of Dakhabai Narayanlal and the appellant Omprakash describing him as the son of Narayanlal and the amount was made payable to the former or survivor.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the genuineness of the will in question is beyond doubt; it is signed by Dakhabai at several places and is attested by a Notary. According to the learned counsel, the several circumstances urged against its genuineness are of no consequence. It has been urged that though in the Pagdi ceremony Consequent on the death of Narayanlalji and Dakhabai, Pagdi was tied on the head of the appellant but it does not constitute any proof of the alleged adoption.

9. It is urged that in the application filed by Dakhabai in 1973 it has been stated that she is the sole heir of the deceased Narayanlal Jindal and in the voters list prepared for the year 1983 also the appellant has been shown as the son of his na