ORDER C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arise out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Parur directing the Receiver appointed by that court to hand over possession of the suit properties to defendants 6 to 9. 2. It is necessary to state very briefly the events leading up to this C. R. P. and C. M. A. 3. Plaintiffs, claiming to be persons interested in the proper administration of the trust, have filed O. S. No. 72 of 1957 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Parur for a declaration that the election of defendants 1 to 5 to the Managing Committee under a scheme is not valid and legal and that they are not entitled to function as people in charge of the management of the institution. In the suit itself the plaintiffs have also asked for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 from taking and defendants 6 to 9 from delivering charge to the members of the new committee. It is also seen that defendants 6 to 10 who are members of the old committee ceased to be in the management on 24-7-1957 by virtue of the clauses in the scheme which governs the administration of the said institution. In consequence an election appears to have taken place and defendants 1 to 5 were declared duly elected on 27-3-1957 and in the ordinary course of events they should have taken charge of their office on 25-7-1957. On 24-1-1957, i. e., one day before they were due to take charge, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the reliefs mentioned above. They appear to have obtained an interim order of injunction as prayed and after notice to the parties the application for injunction was vehemently opposed by defendants 1 to 5: The learned Subordinate Judge who heard that application came to the conclusion that the election of defendants 1 to 5 to the committee of management cannot be said to be valid in law. The learned Judge also held that in consequence of this finding, defendants 1 to 5 cannot be allowed to assume management of the Devaswom. In paragraph 10, the learned Judge further observes that defendants 1 to 5 have levelled very serious charges against defendants 6 to 10. The learned Judge also held that in consequence of this finding, defendants 1 to 5 cannot be allowed to assume management of the Devaswom. In paragraph 10, the learned Judge further observes that defendants 1 to 5 have levelled very serious charges against defendants 6 to 10. It is also stated "Counsel for defendants 6 to 10 submits that his parties are not at all anxious to cling to office. Hence I think that the proper course should be to appoint a receiver to administer the affairs of the Devaswom till the disposal of the suit". 4. In consequence of this finding, the learned Judge granted the injunction as prayed for and also appointed a receiver to take charge of the properties from defendants 6 to 9. 5. Pausing here for a minute, I should say that the attitude adopted, at that stage by defendants 6 to 10, was quite correct and certainly consistent with the interests of the trust and it clearly shows that at that time, at any rate, they had the interests of the trust at heart and they subordinated all their personal prejudices and grievances so far as that matter was concerned. But unfortunately they appear to have changed their mind subsequently as is seen from the attitude adopted by them in subsequent proceedings as also in this court in the C. R. P. and C. M. A. 6. C. M. A. No. 55 of 57 was filed by the plaintiffs against the order appointing a receiver. C. M. A. No. 56 of 57 was filed by defendants 6 to 9 against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge appointing a receiver. In C. M. A. No. 55 of 57, namely, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 5 also filed a memorandum of cross objections opposing the order of the learned Judge granting an injunction as against them. 7. The learned Additional District Judge of Parur heard both these appeals and the memorandum of cross objections and by a common judgment dated 25th October 1957 came to the conclusion that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge about the validity of the election of defendants 1 to 5 was not correct. The learned Judge winds up his discussion on this matter and held that the election of the new committee, referring to defendants 1 to 5, is prima facie valid. The learned Judge winds up his discussion on this matter and held that the election of the new committee, referring to defendants 1 to 5, is prima facie valid. The learned judge has also adverted to the conduct of the plaintiffs in filing this suit and has come to the conclusion that their conduct has been very highly suspicious and that they had actually played into the hands of the defunct committee namely, defendants 6 to 9 and that this was really a suit engineered by defendants 6 to 9 to further their own interest and to continue in possession of the property as long as possible. It is unnecessary for me to say anything further as the suit itself is pending and the learned Judge has to dispose of the suit on the merits. 8. After holding that defendants 1 to 5 have been validly elected, the learned Judge again comes to the conclusion that it is not desirable that they should be kept out of their office any longer. In this view, the learned Judge also set aside the order of the lower court appointing the receiver for the properties. In the end, the learned Judge set aside both the orders of the learned Subordinate Judge namely, granting a temporary injunction as against defendants 1 to 5 and also appointing a receiver for the suit properties. 9. The natural result and consequence of the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Additional District Judge as seen from his order in C. M. A. No. 55 and 56 of 1957 is that the administration of the suit properties must come automatically to defendants 1 to 5. It is also necessary at this stage to mention that the orders of the learned Judge passed in C. M. A. Nos. 55 and 56 of 1957 have become final. We have to proceed on the basis that, at any rate, till the disposal of the suit, the view is that the election of defendants 1 to 5 is perfectly correct. 10. One would have expected a quietus to be given to this unseemly attitude of the parties after the order of the learned Additional District Judge but unfortunately the order of the learned District Judge has again given room for scramble for possession of the suit properties. 11. 10. One would have expected a quietus to be given to this unseemly attitude of the parties after the order of the learned Additional District Judge but unfortunately the order of the learned District Judge has again given room for scramble for possession of the suit properties. 11. We find that there are three different applications filed before the learned Subordinate Judge, one by defendants 6 to 9 for delivery of possession to them, and another by defendants 1 to 5 claiming a similar relief in their favour. The third application and a quite natural one was the application filed by the Receiver asking for directions as to whom the properties should be given possession of. 12. The learned Subordinate Judge has in disposing of these applications come to the conclusion that the status quo ante will have to be restored and that in as much as the Receiver took possession from defendants 6 to 9, the order of the the learned District Judge setting aside the appointment of the Receiver must naturally result in possession being handed over to defendants 6 to 9 and in this view the learned Judge directed possession to be handed over to defendants 6 to 9. 13. In this connection it is necessary to note the latest decision of the Supreme Court in P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L Lakshmi Reddy 1957 SCR 195 . At page 206 of the reports, their Lorships quote with approval the passage in Woodroffe on the law relating to Receivers, if I may say so with respect, which clearly states the possession of a Receiver: "The Receiver being the officer of the Court from which he derives his appointment, his possession is exclusively the possession of the Court, the property being regarded as in the custody of the law in gremio legis, for the benefit of whoever may be ultimately determined to be entitled thereto". Their Lordships further observe at page 205. "A Receiver is an officer of the Court and is not a particular agent of any party to the suit, notwithstanding that in law his possession is ultimately treated as possession of the successful party on the termination of the suit". Their Lordships further observe at page 205. "A Receiver is an officer of the Court and is not a particular agent of any party to the suit, notwithstanding that in law his possession is ultimately treated as possession of the successful party on the termination of the suit". From this it follows that when a Receiver is appointed where there was a dispute as to the persons who are entitled to be in management and to have possession of the suit properties to the court has assumed management in itself through the Receiver in this case. If that is so, the question now arises whether the court should hand over possession to persons from whom the properties were taken possession of or should it give the properties to persons who are admittedly entitled to be in management of the suit properties under the scheme framed by the District Court which governs the administration of the trust. 14. Mr. Mahalinga Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the whole approach made by the learned Subordinate Judge was not correct and there is no question of any restoration of the status quo in this case. In the usual course of things the possession of the properties which is in J the court must be given to the persons who are entitled to be in management. On the other hand, Mr. Krishnamoorthi Iyer, learned counsel for defendants 6 to 9, namely, the members of the old committee who have admittedly ceased to hold office, very vehemently contends that the learned Judge was perfectly right in directing possession to be delivered to his clients. The learned counsel further contended that technically and in law his clients are entitled to get possession and it is open to the newly appointed members of the committee to seek remedies available to them in law. 15. To say the least, this is not the attitude to be adopted by a defunct committee which is not entitled to continue one minute longer in management of this trust. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the court has taken charge of these properties when there was a dispute regarding the management of the trust properties. 15. To say the least, this is not the attitude to be adopted by a defunct committee which is not entitled to continue one minute longer in management of this trust. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the court has taken charge of these properties when there was a dispute regarding the management of the trust properties. Whatever may be the position when the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that he is not satisfied that the election of the new committee is valid, the position has really altered when the learned District Judge has reversed that finding and come to a different conclusion and held that the election which in challenged in these proceedings is prima facie valid. If so, it naturally follows, under the scheme, they are the persons entitled to be in possession and management of the suit properties. Therefore, it is rather too much of technicality to contend that the properties must go back to the old trustees who should in turn be asked to hand over possession of the properties. If really the attitude of the old trustees is helpful and constructive in the interests of the trust, one can appreciate and very well understand that position. In fact, it is also stated that even the Receiver had to take possession of the properties from the defunct committee only with Police help. I do not see any justification for going through this empty formality of possession being handed over to the members of the old committee and then the new committee being asked to take proper proceedings. After all, the duty of the court is to preserve the trust and safeguard the interests of the trust and to see that the proper administration of the trust is carried on by persons who, at any rate, according to the finding of the learned District Judge are validly elected till it is finally held otherwise in the litigation that has been launched by the plaintiffs. 16. The plaintiffs' counsel also supported the stand taken by defendants 6 to 9 in this court. I do not propose to say more about the plaintiffs' attitude now except to remark that it is clear that they are only out to help the members of the old committee and prevent the new committee taking charge. 16. The plaintiffs' counsel also supported the stand taken by defendants 6 to 9 in this court. I do not propose to say more about the plaintiffs' attitude now except to remark that it is clear that they are only out to help the members of the old committee and prevent the new committee taking charge. That is very clear from what has been stated by the learned District Judge in disposing of C. M. A. Nos. 55 and 56 of 1957. 17. In the end, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing possession to be handed over to defendants 6 to 9 is set aside. He will forthwith give directions to the Receiver to hand over possession to defendants 1 to 5. Defendants 6 to 9 and the plaintiffs will pay the costs of the petitioners in this C. R. P. There will be no order as to costs in the C. M. A.