(1.) THIS is an appeal from an order of the Additional District Judge of Indore appointing a receiver in a suit instituted by the plaintiff -respondents to enforce a mortgage. The property in suit was first mortgaged by the appellant in favour of the respondents for Rs. 10,000 - on 26th July, 1948. Subsequently, the appellant again borrowed a further sum of Rs. 10,000 - from the plaintiff -respondents on the security of the same property. According to the terms of the mortgage, the appellant was required to pay Interest on the mortgage amount at the rate of Rs. 11 - percent per month. The mortgage was with possession, and after the execution of the mortgage the property was let out by the mortgagees to the mortgagor and the mortgagor in his turn sub -let it to several sub -tenants recovering from them a total rent of Rs. 400 - per month. The mortgagor did not pay any amount whatever to the mortgagees either towards the principal or the interest. The mortgagees, therefore, instituted a suit to enforce the mortgage claiming the mortgage -money as well as interest due till the date of the institution of the suit, amounting in the neighbourhood of Rs. 4000 -, After the institution of the suit, the plaintiff -mortgagees applied for the appointment of a receiver on the grounds that the mortgagor had been recovering from his own tenants Rs. 400 - per month and had not paid any amount to them, that is the mortgagees; that the property was every day deteriorating in value and that the mortgagor was heavily indebted and bad several decrees outstanding against him, and further that he had concluded a contract for the sale of the mortgaged property with a certain person for Rs. 40,000 - and obtained from him Rs. 7000 - as earnest money and had then resiled from the contract and that the intended purchaser had Instituted a suit against the mortgagor. Taking all these facts Into consideration, the learned Additional District Judge thought it just and convenient to appoint a receiver of the mortgaged property.
(2.) WE have heard Mr. Pande, learned counsel for the appellant. Having regard to the facts narrated above which were not challenged in the lower Court or before us there seems to us no reason whatever to disturb. The order of the learned Additional District Judge appointing the receiver in the suit. The present case is indistinguishable from the case of Vishwanath Vs. Kanakmal (A.I.R. 1952 MP 136) where, in substantially similar circumstances, a receiver of mortgaged property was appointed. It it also stronger than the case of Krishnakumar Vs. H.H. Maharaja Scindia (1955 MBLJ 1941) where the appointment of a receiver in a simple -mortgage suit was upheld by the Madhya Bharat High Court. We see no ground at all to interfere in the order of the lower Court. The appeal is, therefore dismissed, with costs.