ORDER : 1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 14-2-52, passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in civil appeal no. 67 of 1951 rejecting the appeal against the order of the Sub-Judge Bhopal, in his turn rejecting- an application for appointment of a Receiver. 2. The plaintiff-applicant sued the defendant-non-applicant who is his brother for a partition and accounts. According to the plaintiff, both of them jointly owned a truck B.S. No. 1711 as tenants-in-common each having half share in it. The plaintiff sued for partition of the truck on the ground that the defendant, who possessed it and plied it for hire, used to pay him the share of the income of the truck, but had ceased to do so. He also applied for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the truck till the decision of the suit. The defendant denied that the plaintiff owned any share in the truck. The Subordinate Judge rejected the application and the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the documentary and oral evidence of the parties clearly proved the ownership solely of the defendant and that the plaintiff did not prove any misappropriation, malversation, mis-management or waste of the property on the defendant's part. 3. It is now urged that the appellate Court was wrong in forestalling the decision of the suit by his observations regarding the ownership of the truck and that the Registration Certificate, which was an independent government document, indicated at least a prima facie title of the plaintiff and thus the order of the learned District Judge was materially irregular. 4. There is no doubt that the observations in para 6 of the order of the learned Additional District Judge are highly objectionable. It was dangerous for the appellate Court to express an opinion as to the merits of the case or to indicate even briefly whether there appeared grounds for supposition that one side or the other had a stronger prima facie case. Both the Courts had only to examine if the plaintiff had a prima facie title to any interest in the property and then to see if it was just and convenient to appoint a Receiver in order to avoid possible loss to either party till the main question of title was, finally decided. Both the Courts had only to examine if the plaintiff had a prima facie title to any interest in the property and then to see if it was just and convenient to appoint a Receiver in order to avoid possible loss to either party till the main question of title was, finally decided. Both the Courts seem to have fallen into an error of almost deciding the suit itself. 5. It is no doubt true that where a property is in the hands of one co-sharer and share of the profits is withheld from the other, there is sufficient reason for appointing a Receiver. 'Basant Ram v. Dasondhi Mal', AIR 1929 Lah 497 (A). In the case on hand, however, the interest of the plaintiff in the property in suit is yet to be decided. On his side he has filed a Registration Certificate indicating it while the defendant has filed receipts alleged to be for the price paid for the truck and the fine paid in a certain case allegedly connected with the truck. Both the parties thus seem to have indicated prima facie title to an interest in the property. 6. None of the Courts could enter into the final decision of the question of ownership at this stage and as they have done so, their orders are irregular and erroneous. Considering, therefore, the question of appointment of a Receiver, it must be remembered that the property is said to be jointly held and that the profits are withheld from the plaintiff. In such cases where the subject-matter of the suit consists of movable property, being used every day, only its ordinary wear and tear can be presumed and it is proper to maintain the status-quo as obtained at the date of the suit. It may be deemed to be just that a Receiver should be appointed. 7. Under the law, however, this is not enough. It is also necessary to find if it would be convenient to do so. The defendant is admittedly plying the truck for hire and it seems that it would be inconvenient to dispossess a person who has also an equal interest in the property. Being so equally interested in preserving the property from inordinate damage or waste, the defendant is ordinarily bound to fake care of it and keep it in proper order. The defendant is admittedly plying the truck for hire and it seems that it would be inconvenient to dispossess a person who has also an equal interest in the property. Being so equally interested in preserving the property from inordinate damage or waste, the defendant is ordinarily bound to fake care of it and keep it in proper order. It must also be remembered that the plaintiff has also claimed accounts of the profits since they are said to have been withheld. In the circumstances, it does not appear to be convenient to remove the defendant from the possession and hand over the property to a stranger and complicate matters. It is in this view, therefore, that no Receiver can be appointed in regard to the truck in suit. 8. The revision is, on these grounds, dismissed and in view of the circumstances of the case, the parties are ordered to bear their own costs in this Court. The trial Court is, however, cautioned against being influenced by the observations in the order of the appellate Court in regard to the question of the ownership of the truck and the merits of the case. Revision dismissed.