https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196285 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. en-us Mon, 01 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Nov 2017 10:54:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196285 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196285