(1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order passed by the Additional District Judge of Gwalior appointing a receiver in a mortgage suit instituted by the Plaintiff -Respondent. The suit is on the basis of three mortgage deeds executed by Laxmi Kumar as manager of a joint Hindu family. The present Appellant is a minor son of laxmi Kumar, and both Laxmi Kumar and Krishna Kumar are Defendants in the suit.
(2.) THE suit was filed on 26 -4 -1950. On 7 -5 -1953 the Plaintiff applied for the appointment of a receiver. He sought the appointment of a receiver on the grounds that the total amount due from the Defendants on the date of the suit was Rs. 5,54,697 -15 -6; that since then a further amount of Rs. 8,578 by way of interest had become due and the amount of interest was accumulating every month at the rate of Rs. 2,456 -13 -0; that the Defendants were, protracting the litigation; that the value of the mortgaged properly had gone down considerably and that the Defendants had stopped taking care of the mortgaged property which consisted of houses, oil, sugar and 'dal mills' and land, and that the mortgaged property was, therefore, deteriorating and further that the Defendants were realising rents from certain tenants of the mortgaged property but were not paying any amount to the Plaintiff either towards the principal or the interest.
(3.) MR . Bhagwandas Gupta learned Counsel for the Appellant did not say anything to raise in our minds any doubt as to the correctness of the decision in the cases of 'Viswanath (B)' and 'Bachhraj (C)'. He, however, sought to distinguish these cases by saying that in 'Vishwanath's case (B) the suit was on the basis of a usufructuary mortgage and that in Bachhraj's Case (C) the question 'was of the appointment of a receiver of a part of the mortgaged property. In my opinion the distinction drawn by the learned Counsel does not in any way affect the rule laid down in those cases that in a simple mortgage suit the Court is competent to appoint a receiver of the mortgaged property.