GUMANMAL Vs. SHAMBHULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Gumanmal and others plaintiffs against the order of the District Judge, Jodhpur, rejecting their application for appointment of a receiver. It appears that the appellants took a mortgage-deed from defendants 1 to 3 in October, 1946, for a sum of Rs, 60,001/ -. A sale-deed of a part of this property was written out in May,1947, for Rs. 123000/-and the vendees of this sale-deed wrote out a mortgage-deed in favour of the plaintiffs on the same day. These two documents were, however, not registered, and the plaintiffs filed the present suit on the 21st September, 1948. Later the sale-deed was registered on 10. 5. 1950, but the mortgage deed was not registered. Thereafter an application for receivership was made by the plaintiffs on the 19th September, 1950. The plaintiffs' case as put in their application was that the amount due to them had risen to Rs. 72000/-, and that if a receiver was not appointed, there would be difficulty in realising the amount from the defendants.

(2.) THE main reason for which the court below has rejected the application is that there is nothing to show that the property secured would not be sufficient to meet the decree that might be passed eventually. THEre was no allegation by the plaintiffs that if a receiver was not appointed and rents not collected, the decretal amount would be much more than the value of the property. It is true that the mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs was an, anomalous mortgage and the defendants 1 to 2 executed a rent-note in their favour ; but merely because of this it cannot necessarily be said that it is just and convenient that a receiver should be appointed particularly when there is nothing in the plaintiffs' affidavit in support of their application to show that they would suffer any loss by the non-appointment of a receiver. In this view of the matter, we are of opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court.