JUDGMENT

Soott-Smith, J. - Gulab Das, the Mahant of the shrine of Kacha Pacca in the Montgomery District died on the 22nd December 1921. There are two claimants to succeed to the office of Mahant, Kalyan Das, plaintiff-respondent, and Manohar Das*, defendant-appellant. Each claims to have been duly elected Mahant subsequent to the death of Gulab Das. There was a dispute as to mutation of the lands attached to the shrine before the Re-venue Officer, and the mutation was effected in defendant's favour on the 3rd May 1922. U-p to that time neither party was in possession and the Settlement Collector, on that date, ordered that the defendant should be put in possession of the lands attached to the shrine. On the same day the plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that he is the Mahant of the shrine, and is entitled to the lands, houses, dera and samath relating thereto. One the same date he made an application that temporary injunction should issue under Order 39 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, and the Court forthwith issued an injunction to the Revenue Authorities that they should not deliver possession to the defendant pending a decision by the Court as to which party was entitled to the gadi. This was followed on the 6th May by an order appointing a Receiver of the property under Order 40, Civil Procedure Code. From these orders the defendant has filed an appeal to this Court.

2. Somewhat lengthy arguments have been addressed to me by the parties' Counsel but the main points urged by Pandit Sheo Narain on behalf of the appellant are that the lower Court acted with great haste, that his client's objections were not disposed of, that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie title to the property in dispute, and that it is absolutely necessary that there should be a de facto Mahant in order that all matters connected with the shrine should be looked after and should go on as usual. It appears that immediately after the death of the previous Mahant there was a regular scramble between the parties to the suit as to who should succeed him. Each of them got himself elected by certain persons. In these circumstances Mr. Tek Chand for the respondent urges that it is eminently a case in which it is proper to appoint a receiver. He also urges that the lower Court having exercised its discretion, this Court should not interfere unless very good grounds are shown. He has referred inter alia to the following authorities. Jibanessa Khatun v. Majiduznnessa Khatun 17 C.W.N. 581, in which it was held that "where some provision for the management of a certain estate is urgently called for either by the appointment of a common manager or of a Receiver, there is no necessity for making out a strong case for the appointment of a Receiver, because the Court can hardly go wrong in making such an appointment. A Court of Appeal will not, except in an extreme case, disturb the selection of a Receiver by the Court below unless there be some overwhelming objection in point of propriety or choice or some fatal objection in principle."

3. Raja Ram v. Thakurain Sheo Rani Kuer [1910] 7 I.C. 344 in which it was held! that: "Where the lower Court, in the exercise of its discretion after considering all the facts and evidence, has come to a conclusion, it is for the appellants to show that the Court exercised its discretion improperly."

4. The same view was taken in Sant Ram v. Ram Chand [1910] 53 P.W.R. 1910 and Kadir Bakhsh v. Ghulam Mohammad [1920] 30 P.W.R. 1920.

5. Now, it must be admitted that the lower Court acted in a somewhat summary manner, but the occasion demanded that prompt action should be taken, for the Revenue Authorities had ordered that possession should be forthwith given to the defendant. In my opinion it was pre; eminently a case where a Receiver should be appointed. The property is not private property, and there is something to be said for the claim of each party, and if one of them is put into possession and appointed de facto Mahant during