DEVIKISHAN Vs. CHAMPALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. An application has been made by the respondents for setting aside an order staying execution. These respondents have obtained a preliminary decree for sale on their mortgage, and the appellants Devikishan and Sunderlal have preferred an appeal to this Court. After admission of the appeal Mr. Grille, Additional Judicial Commissioner ordered that further proceedings in the lower Court should be stayed pending the decision of the appeal. The respondents however have now applied that that order should be set aside as the appellants are committing waste of the mortgaged property. This allegation is denied by the appellants who are the malguzars in possession of the mortgaged property.

(2.) I am not however satisfied with the explanation given by the learned Counsel for the appellants, and it would seem that the appellants are probably going beyond the ordinary course of village management in granting leases. The preliminary decree cannot be executed and I do not think that it can be made final until the appeal is decided on merits. At the same time it is obviously desirable that the mortgaged property should be kept intact as far as possible. The best course will I think be to appoint a receiver, which is usually undesirable. In the present case however as has been suggested by the learned Counsel for the respondents, one of the appellants can be appointed receiver, and this will cause no inconvenience to the parties but will have a salutary effect and will prevent waste or destruction of the property. I therefore appoint the appellant, Sunderlal, the lambardar, receiver of the property in suit pending the decision of the appeal and direct that he furnish a full and accurate account of the property and of the income of the property twice a year, namely, on 1st July and on 1st January each year.