The appointment of a Receiver is a matter resting in the discretion of the Court and should not be appointed except upon proof by the plaintiff that prima facie he has very excellent chance of succeeding in the suit.

JUDGMENT : - This is an application for the appointment of a Receiver.

2. The facts are : The applicant-plaintiff T. Krishnaswami Chetty has filed C.S. No.295 of 1953 in the pauper form for a declaration that the alienations made in favour of defendants 1 to 3, respondents herein, of the suit houses described as items 1 and 2 of Sch. B to the plaint are not valid and binding, for mesne profits, for possession and for other reliefs.

3. In this suit he has filed this interlocutory application for the appointment of a Receiver for these suit properties pending disposal of the suit on the foot of the following allegations :

"These properties originally belonged to one Rangiah Chetty, my grand-father who executed his last will and testament on 19-11-1910 of which probate was also obtained on 5-9-1913 in O.P. No.29 of 1911 and T.O.S.No.4 of 1911 on the file of this Honble Court. Under the said will the testator made a provision for his heirs including his wife, daughters and daughters children, so that, the properties may be enjoyed by them during their lifetime and subsequently by their children absolutely, but in spite of the intention of the testator and the best care he has taken to secure the enjoyment of properties for his relations, the properties have now fallen into the hands of strangers by malpractices of some of the heirs of the testator with the result while the relations of the testators suffering, strangers who are not thought of by the testator, are in unjust and illegal enjoyment of the properties for a very long time....... If the respondents are allowed to enjoy the income of the properties during the pendency of the suit herein, it may be even impossible after the decree to recover anything from them. Further the respondents are not taking care of the properties on account of which the houses have fallen into disrepair and they are not fetching good rent."

4. The contesting respondent-defendant, viz., the auction-purchaser in possession of these properties contends as follows :

"This is the fourth suit filed by the plaintiffs family for agitating the rights now claimed. None of them have been pursued to the end and the latest one is in forma pauperis. The previous suit C.S.No.751 of 1948 which was transferred to the City Civil Court was withdrawn and dismissed on his failure to pay the court-fee due to Government. Now the valuation has been exaggerated and the suit is filed in forma pauperis in this Honble Court.

On the merits of the case the allegations made in the plaint are inconsistent and misleading. Under the will of Rangiah Chetty, which was probated, the members of the family were given definite rights and this was later on concluded by a family arrangement culminating in the consent decree dated 14-3-1935 in C. S.No.403 of 1943 on the file of this Honble Court. The respective branches have been enjoying the properties accordingly and even alienating the same.

I am the purchaser on foot of the mortgage decree and am in possession of the same. I have parted with Rs.8,175/- and am in possession as a bona fide purchaser. I have also obtained rent decree against the plaintiff who is my tenant. Now this suit is brought to get over all these proceedings and to ignore the family settlement which has to be construed at the trial. I am advised that it is not necessary at this stage to enter into an argument on the merits of the legal construction of the will of Rangiah Chetty. It is enough to state that the parties comprising all the branches of the family have accepted the arrangement and have been enjoying the properties thereunder. The application for the appointment of a Receiver is not sustainable. There are no acts of waste alleged and there is no danger to the property. Application for a similar order was made in C.S. No.751 of 1948 and was dismissed by his Lordship Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. I crave leave to refer to the said order at the time of the hearing of the application.

In any event the application h