JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous civil first appeal is directed against the order of the Additional, District Judge No. 1, Jaipur dated 22.3.75 rejecting the application for appointment of receiver moved on behalf of the plaintiff appellants. 2. The dispute relates to a house situated in Jaipur, Chowkari Ghat Darwaza, Rasta-Bheruji Kundigaran, fully described in para No. 1 of the plaint. This house belonged to Mst. Loga who by a gift deed dated 29.8.52 dedicated the same to the defendant Thakurji Shri Laxmi Narainji Virajman Ramganj Bazar Khurra- Kawatiyan-Mochiyan. The plaintiffs brought the suit under section 92 Civil Procedure Code in the court of District Judge, Jaipur City for appointment of a Trustee to manage the property in dispute and also to frame a scheme in accordance with the object for which the property was gifted by Smt. Loga. 3. It appears from the record that two shops out of this disputed property were let out to the tenants, each at the monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The rest of the property is said to be possessed by the defendant Pujari of Thakurji Laxmi Narainji. The Pujari took possession of the two shops on 22.10.72 & of the remaining apartments of the house on 1.4.72. A decree for a sum of Rs. 4715.75 was granted against the plaintiff appellants in respect of the masne profits of the disputed house in a suit filed by the defendant Thakurji against the plaintiffs. it is not disputed before me that the tenants against whom suits are pending for recovery of arrears of rent have not paid any rent as yet to the defendants. But it appears that the plaintiffs have deposited the amount of Rs. 4715.75 decreed against them during the pendency of this appeal. 4. It is common ground between the parties that the entire property for the management of which the application has been moved for appointment of a receiver consists of the two shops in possession of the tenants in respect of which suits for recovery of arrears of rent are pending, the remaining apartments of the house which are in possession of the defendant Pujari and the amount Rs. 4715.75 which is said to have been deposited by the plaintiffs as mesne profits of the property in dispute during the pendency of this appeal. 5. 4715.75 which is said to have been deposited by the plaintiffs as mesne profits of the property in dispute during the pendency of this appeal. 5. The question that arises is whether in the circumstances of the case the lower court committed error in rejecting the application for appointment of receiver for the management of the disputed property. Ramaaswami J in T. Krishnaswamy Chetty v. Thangavelu Chetty, AIR 1955 Mad 430 laid down that the appointment of a receiver is recognised as one of the harshest remedies which the law provides for the enforcement of rights and is allowable only in extreme cases & in circumstances where the interest of the person seeking the appointment of a receiver is exposed to manifest peril. Therefore, this exceedingly delicate and responsible duty has to be discharged by the court with the utmost caution. 6. Ramaswami J then enumerated five principles which must be satisfied before an order appointing a receiver in a suit can be made. They are as follows:- "(1). The appointment of a receiver pending a suit is a matter resting in the discretion of the court. (2). The Court should not appoint a receiver except upon proof by the plaintiff that prima facie he has a very excellent chance of succeeding to the suit. (3). Not only must the plaintiff show a case of adverse and conflicting claims to property, but he must show some emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action and of his own right he must be reasonably clear and free from doubt. The element of danger is an important consideration. (4). An order appointing a receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a 'de facto' possession since that might cause irreparable wrong. it would be different where the property is shown to be 'in medio' that is to say, in the enjoyment of no one, end (5). (4). An order appointing a receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a 'de facto' possession since that might cause irreparable wrong. it would be different where the property is shown to be 'in medio' that is to say, in the enjoyment of no one, end (5). The Court, on the application made for the appointment of a receiver, looks to the conduct of the3 party who makes the application and will usually refuse to interfere unless his conduct has been free from blame." In my opinion, the prayer for appointment of a receiver during the pendency of the suit must be allowed with utmost caution and only when the five principles enumerated above and embodied in the words 'just and convenient' in Rule 1 of Order 40 are fulfilled by the facts of the case under consideration. 7. Bearing in mind the3 above five principles if the facts of the present case are examined neither the plaintiffs have shown prima facie case in their favour nor any such emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action to save the property. The element of danger is an important consideration and a court will not act on possible danger only. 8. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the defendant Pujari is likely to spend the amount of Rs. 4715.75 for purposes other than those mentioned in the gift deed and therefore it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver to ensure safety of that amount. The fear of the plaintiffs can be safeguarded if the said amount is deposited with a schedule bank in a fixed deposit Account and the Pujari be allowed to spend its interest on the Raj Bhog of Thakurji and the proper management of the dedicated property in accordance with the terms of the gift deed. There is however, no justification for this purpose to appoint a receiver. 9. In my opinion no case for appointment of a receiver has been made out by the plaintiffs and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. I accordingly dismiss it with no order as to cost. *******