Receiver appointment in partition suits requires more than plaintiff's non-possession; deposit of probable yield may protect the claim.

In a partition suit, a receiver should not be appointed merely because the plaintiff is out of possession; the remedy is discretionary and requires a strong prima facie case, a real risk of waste or loss, and circumstances showing that the person in possession is likely to mismanage the property. Mere non-possession does not justify displacing de facto possession through a receiver. Where the plaintiff's claim appears plausible and her share is not unreal, the court may instead protect her interest by directing deposit of an amount representing the probable yearly yield pending trial. On the stated facts, receiver appointment was unwarranted, but a deposit direction was an appropriate safeguard.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a partition suit, a receiver could be appointed under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 merely because the plaintiff was out of possession, and whether the trial court ought instead to have protected the plaintiff's interest by directing deposit of an amount representing her share of the yield.

Analysis: The power to appoint a receiver is discretionary and must be exercised on settled principles, not routinely. In a partition dispute, the applicant must ordinarily show a strong prima facie case, some emergency or danger of waste or loss, and circumstances indicating that the party in possession is incompetent or is likely to waste or mismanage the property. Mere non-possession by the plaintiff does not, by itself, justify ousting the defendants from de facto possession by appointment of a receiver. At the same time, where the plaintiff appears to have a fair chance of succeeding and her share is not wholly unreal, the court may protect her interest by directing monetary deposit representing the probable yield, rather than displacing possession.

Conclusion: The appointment of a receiver was not justified on the facts, but the defendants were rightly directed to deposit a yearly amount during the pendency of the suit as a protective measure for the plaintiff's claimed share.

---