Receiver appointment over joint family property upheld where preservation needed and possession was not shown to be properly managed.

A person claiming an interest in suit property is not barred from seeking a receiver merely because he is not yet on record as a party. The power under Order 40 Rule 1 extends beyond existing parties and may be exercised to preserve property where competing claimants have no established present right to retain possession. On the facts, poor management, uncultivated property, and the risk of further deterioration justified appointment of a receiver over the joint family property. The appointment was upheld, while the choice of the individual receiver was left open for further determination.

---

---

Issues: Whether a receiver could be appointed at the instance of persons claiming an interest in the suit property, and whether the circumstances justified appointment of a receiver over the joint family property.

Analysis: A person asserting a right in the property and seeking to preserve it is not barred from moving the Court for a receiver merely because he is not yet on record as a party. The power under Order 40 Rule 1 is not confined to applications by existing parties, and the Court may act to protect the property even on the application of an interested person. The restriction in sub-rule (2) does not prevent appointment where the object is preservation and the competing claimants are not shown to have a present right to retain possession. On the facts, the persons in possession were found incapable of proper management, some property had already been left uncultivated, and there was apprehension of further deterioration.

Conclusion: A receiver could validly be appointed, and the order appointing a receiver was justified. The question of the individual to be appointed as receiver was left for further determination.

---