Govinda Menon, J.-This is an appeal by Sri Narayana Dossju Varu, the present Mahant of Sri Hathiramji Mutt, Tirupati, one of the most well-known mutts of South India, against the order of the learned District Judge of Chittoor appointing a Receiver for the purpose of taking possession and managing the properties as well as the assets belonging to the mutt pending disposal of O.S. No.1 of 1950. The plaintiff was recognised as the Mahant for a concordat as it were to use the language of the learned counsel for the respondent, on 15th January 1948. But pending such recognition, the Endowments Board had appointed one Mr. Bhujanga Rao to be in possession of the properties, after the death of the previous Mahant, which took place on 5th October, 1947. When once the appellant was recognised and installed as the Mahant, the interim trustee appointed by the Board handed over possession of the properties to the Mahant along with cash to the tune of more than Rs.1,70,000 and the jewels belonging to the Mutt. It is not necessary for us to specifically describe the proceedings which took’ place between the date of handing over of the assets to the appellant and the time when a scheme was framed by the Board for the management of the Mutt under section 62 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act. Suffice it for the present purpose to state that the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, not being satisfied with the management of the Mutt properties by the appellant, framed a scheme which in great detail dealt with various matters as to how the Mutt has to be conducted what expenses have to be incurred for various things and so on. O.S.No.1 of 1950 was a suit under section 63 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act for modifying or setting aside the scheme framed by the Board filed by the appellant as plaintiff. Pending that suit, he applied to the learned District Judge by I. A. No.18 of 1950 for an order of temporary injunction restraining the Hindu Religious Endowments Board from appointing an executive officer or in any way giving effect to the provisions of the scheme settled by the Board on 18th November 1949 till the disposal of O.S.No.1 of 1950. Pending that suit, he applied to the learned District Judge by I. A. No.18 of 1950 for an order of temporary injunction restraining the Hindu Religious Endowments Board from appointing an executive officer or in any way giving effect to the provisions of the scheme settled by the Board on 18th November 1949 till the disposal of O.S.No.1 of 1950. That was supported by an affidavit, to which the Hindu Religious Endowments Board filed a counter alleging various acts of mismanagement, malversation and misappropriation of trust funds. It was also alleged by the Board that the appellant had arrogated to himself ownership of certain properties, which according to the Board, belonged to the Trust and in such arrogation, the appellant had filed O.S.No.48 of 1949, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Chittoor, for a declaration that certain cash and other properties did not belong to the Mutt, but were the private properties of the appellant This application was heard by the learned District Judge, who without stating whether an order of injunction should be passed or refused, expressed his opinion that the interests of the Mutt necessitated the appointment of a Receiver and thereupon a member of the Bar, who was one of the persons in the panel of Receivers of that district, was appointed as Receiver. Aggrieved by that order the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. We have heard lengthy and exhaustive arguments on various aspects of the question from the learned counsel on either side. But, in our opinion, it is not proper in the circumstances of the case and in the view which we are taking to give expression to any views of our own. The learned District Judge has not considered the question as to whether the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree as is necessary if Order 39, rule 1, has to be invoked in favour of the appellant. Nor has the learned District Judge considered the question as to whether it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver. Nor has the learned District Judge considered the question as to whether it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver. We may remark that there was no application either by the appellant or by the respondent for the appointment of a Receiver The only way in which the order of the learned District Judge appointing a receiver can be justified is by invoking the words in Order 39, rule 1, namely “make such other order.” It cannot be stated that this contemplated the appointment of a Receiver. No authority has been brought to our notice, which holds that if a plaintiff in a suit asks for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession of the properties, it is open to the Court to appoint a Receiver and thereby dispossess the plaintiff. As we are not expressing any opinion on the merits it seems to us that the reasons given by the learned District Judge for the appointment of a Receiver in paragraph 5 of the judgment need not be canvassed at this stage. But, we feel that the lower Court erred in appointing a Receiver on this application for injunction by the plaintiff. As the procedure adopted by the learned District Judge is not one, which commends itself to our acceptance, we set aside the order of the learned District Judge and remand I.A.No.18 of 1950 for disposal according to law in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. Costs of this appeal will abide and follow the result of the fresh disposal. K.C. ----- Order set aside.