JUDGMENT : This is plaintiffs' appeal against the order refusing to appoint a Receiver in Misc. Civil Case No.21 of 1953 arising out of the Civil Suit No. 6 of 1953 in the Court of the District Judge, Bhopal. 2. Seth Ramlal the original plaintiff-appellant died during the pendency of this appeal, and his two sons and a widow are brought on record in his place. Seth Ramlal sued the defendants for specific performance of a contract for sale and possession of over 300 acres of land including fruit gardens and large movable property including grain, cattle and agricultural implements in all worth Rs.60,101/- said to have been taken wrongful possession of by the defendants under the agreement entered into by his son Balwant Singh under which the defendants paid only Rs.2000/- as earnest money and failed to pay the balance of Rs.58,101/-as agreed or in the alternative a sum of Rs.69,200/-and odd including the above amount and land revenue and tractorization charges paid by the plaintiff in order to save the property from being sold and the profits for one year. The defendants claimed to have paid most of the consideration and denied that their possession was wrongful. 3. Along with the suit, the plaintiff Ramlal filed an application for appointment of a Receiver of the property in suit on the allegations: (i) that the defendants were enjoying the property at the expense of the plaintiff who had to pay the land revenue and tractorization charges to save it from being auctioned from their realization, (ii) that the defendants were men of no means and whatever little property they had at another village had been sold away by them, (iii) that they were damaging the property and dissipating it by not properly manuring and irrigating the land after tractorization, (iv) that the cattle were not being properly fed and some of them had died, (v) that the fruit-trees are not being watered and some have dried up and some are drying up, (vi) that the stock of grain has been removed and appropriated. In the alternative the plaintiff prayed for security from the defendants for the preservation of the property in tact. The defendants replied that they have paid up the major portion of the consideration for the sale and the crops are standing in the land and the defendant No.1 Sk. In the alternative the plaintiff prayed for security from the defendants for the preservation of the property in tact. The defendants replied that they have paid up the major portion of the consideration for the sale and the crops are standing in the land and the defendant No.1 Sk. Munir claimed to hold property worth about Rs. one lac and it is said that the allegations of the plaintiff were mala fide. 4. The learned District judge rejected the application mainly on the ground that most of the points raised in the application were covered in the issues in the suit and could not be decided in an interlocutory application and the defendants who are in possession should not be disturbed and therefore it would not be just and convenient to appoint a Receiver. 5. In dealing with such application the first consideration is to preserve the property by preservation of the rights and prevention of injury as otherwise the very fruit of a decree, if any, is likely to be lost. The other important consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to appoint a Receiver for such preservation of the property. The word "Just" in the Rule indicates that the possession of the party shall not be disturbed if it is not just to do so. It may also be pointed out that it would be perfectly just to disturb the possession if it is found that the party in possession (wrongful or otherwise) is found to be wasting or damaging it by acts of commission or omission and has no means to compensate for the loss thus caused. These matters have to be decided on the prima facie indications in the evidence produced on record which may consist of affidavits and other documents or their absence in rebuttal. The learned District Judge does not seem to have considered the matter in the light of these and seems to have been merely influenced by the fact that the defendants were in possession of the property. 6. The learned District Judge does not seem to have considered the matter in the light of these and seems to have been merely influenced by the fact that the defendants were in possession of the property. 6. The plaintiff's application was supported by two affidavits which make definite statements regarding the waste and damage to the lands and fruit gardens and the serious neglect in manuring and irrigating the soil after tractorization, in feeding the agricultural cattle and milch cattle and the appropriation of the grain stock and there is definite statement that the defendants have sold away whatever little immovable property they had at another village and are now men of no means that the plaintiff had to pay up the land revenue and other charges for 1952-53 in order to avoid the sale of the land for their recovery. In this Court they have produced further documents to show that the defendants have no movable property and further that the lands of the whole holding are brought to auction by the Revenue Authorities for the recovery of a huge amount of arrears of the tractorization charges since the defendants took possession and there is serious apprehension of the property being definitely lost on that account. 7. On the other side, the defendants' allegation of payment of Rs.58,000/- and odd is discounted by their own previous statement of payment of only Rs.37,000/- and odd in the proceedings under S.145, Cr.Pro. Code which the parties were driven to. In the affidavit filed by them they do not counter the definite allegations in the affidavits filed by the plaintiff regarding the sale of their other property and the dues in arrears for land revenue and tractorization charges and the probable auction of the lands, the neglect of the soil of the lands, the neglect in watering of the fruit garden and the payment of the arrears by the plaintiff. It is thus prima facie clear that unless the property is placed in possession of a third person for its preservation it will be completely lost, dissipated or irreparably damaged. 8. It is thus prima facie clear that unless the property is placed in possession of a third person for its preservation it will be completely lost, dissipated or irreparably damaged. 8. In - 'Ramchandrayya v. Nethi Iswarayya', AIR 1952 Hyd 139 (A), it is observed: "The underlying principle under Order 40, Rule (1) relating to the appointment of a Receiver, is that subject-matter of the suit should be allowed to remain intact in order that at the end the final adjudication the parties might be entitled to the benefit thereof. No doubt ordinarily it is only where the Court is satisfied that there is danger apprehended of the subject-matter of the suit becoming unavailable, if the defendant were allowed to remain in possession of the same, or that the plaintiff would not be in a position to realise the fruits of his decree if he succeeds unless the property were protected, that the Court would be inclined to appoint a Receiver." In - 'Ganpat Pralhad v. Pralhad Madhoba Ruikar Trust', AIR 1952 Nag 253 (B), it has been observed: "Where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant is not in a position to manage the property satisfatcorily, has allowed some land to lie fallow and that the property will deteriorate in value if he remains in possession there are adequate grounds for appointment of a receiver." As I have already observed above there is prima facie evidence to indicate that there is serious apprehension of the property being dissipated or irreparably damaged or lost if the defendants are allowed to continue in possession. It must therefore be held that it is just and convenient that a Receiver in respect of the whole property in suit including the movable property as may be found be appointed till the decision of the suit. 9. The appeal is therefore allowed with costs against the respondents who shall bear their own costs. The order of the District Judge refusing to appoint a Receiver is set aside and it is ordered that a Receiver in respect of the property in suit including the movable property as may be found be appointed and he shall remain in possession and management of the property till the decision of the suit, subject to security being obtained from him. The person to be so appointed may be determined as far as possible in consultation of the parties and the trial Court shall determine the amount of the security to be obtained from the Receive before he is placed in possession and management of the property, his remuneration and such other conditions as may be necessary for the proper preservation of the property and the profits thereof to be accounted for. Counsel's fee in this appeal shall be Rs.75/- for each side. The parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 28-2-55. Appeal allowed.