A. K. SEN, B. C. CHAKRABARTI, JJ. ( 1 ) THESE are the two miscellaneous appeals and since both of them involve the common question as to whether a Receiver should be appointed in respect of the self-same properties they have been heard together. F. M. A. No. 633 of 1980 (F. M. A. T. No. 2833 of 1980) is directed against an order dated September 2, 1980, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore disposing of an application for appointment of a Receiver filed by the respondent in Title Appeal No. 911 of 1973. F. M. A. No. 561 of 1980 is directed against an order dated June 23, 1979, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 100 of 1977 thereby vacating an earlier order of appointment of Receiver at the instance of a third party petitioner before the learned Subordinate Judge. ( 2 ) IN both the cases the subject-matter in dispute is premises Nos. 37, 38 and 38/1, Panditiya Road, Calcutta. It is not in dispute that these properties belong to the estate of late C. Mackertich now represented by the Executor and Trustee, Sailendra Nath Mukherjee, the appellant in F. M. A. No. 633 of 1980. Those properties were the subject-matter of two leases in favour of Messrs. Steuart and Company Limited, the respondent in the aforesaid appeal, the late C. Mackertich instituted Title Suit Nos. 30 and 31 for recovery of possession of the said two lease-hold properties as against Messrs. Steuart and Company Limited and those and those suits were decreed by the trial court on September 15, 1955. On appeals Messrs. Steuart and Company Limited the decrees were set aside by the High Court but on a further appeal to the Supreme Court at the instance of the plaintiff the decrees as passed by the learned Subordinate Judge were affirmed on October 14, 1969. ( 3 ) IN November, 1969, the judgment-debtor, Messrs. Steuart and Company Limited instituted two suits, being Title Suit Nos. 121 and 122 of 1969, inter alia, for a declaration that the judgment-debtor is the sole and absolute owner of the structures standing on the said premises and is entitled to remove the same. ( 3 ) IN November, 1969, the judgment-debtor, Messrs. Steuart and Company Limited instituted two suits, being Title Suit Nos. 121 and 122 of 1969, inter alia, for a declaration that the judgment-debtor is the sole and absolute owner of the structures standing on the said premises and is entitled to remove the same. There was a further prayer for injunction restraining the decree-holder from interfering with the judgment-debtor's possession till the judgment-debtor is able to remove the structures, part of which was then under requisition by the State Government. In these suits the judgment-debtor obtained an injunction restraining execution of the decrees but the suits ultimately failed and were dismissed by the trial court on August 31, 1973. The judgment-debtor then preferred two appeals, being Title Appeal Nos. 911 and 912 of 1973 and therein again obtained further injunction against the decree-holder in a manner similar to the same as in the trial court. Unfortunately these two appeals had not been disposed of by the learned Judge in the Court of Appeal below for all these years so that notwithstanding a decree in his favour the decree-holder had been unable to recover possession since the year 1969. Since, however, the properties were yielding valuable income by way of rent as also recurring compensation now being paid by the State Government both totaling a sum exceeding Rs. 20,000/- a month, the appellant before us who is now representing the decree-holder filed an application for appointment of a Receiver. Obviously he prayed for such income from the property restraining at the same time the decree-holder from recovering possession thereof. This, the judgment-debtor is doing notwithstanding the fact that the judgment-debtor had suffered a decree against him in a litigation fought up to the Supreme Court and notwithstanding the further fact that the suits filed by it failed as early as in the year 1973. This application for appointment of a Receiver came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore. The learned Additional District Judge did not go into the merits of the claim for appointment of a Receiver. This application for appointment of a Receiver came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore. The learned Additional District Judge did not go into the merits of the claim for appointment of a Receiver. In view, however, of an order made in a subsequently instituted suit referred to hereinafter in this judgment he disposed of the application for appointment of a Receiver in the light of the order which is the subject-matter of challenge now before us in F. M. A. No. 633 of 1980. ( 4 ) IN or about March, 1977 the Mercantile Bank Limited instituted Title Suit No. 100 of 1977 against Sailendra Nath Mukherjee, the Executor and Trustee to the estate of late C. Mackertich for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,53,645. 27 on enforcement of an equitable mortgage in respect of the aforesaid properties. It was claimed that late C. Mackertich enjoyed for the purpose of his business overdraft facilities at first with Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, the entire undertaking or business of which later stood transferred to Mercantile Bank Limited and then from the said Mercantile Bank Limited to secure repayment of which the late C. Mackertich had mortgaged the disputed properties in favour of the Bank. In this suit, the plaintiff Bank filed an application for appointment of a Receiver. It was so applied for to protect the rents, issues and profits arising out of the suit properties so as to safeguard the realization and satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim in the suit. This application though originally contested by Sailendra Nath Mukherjee, the said Sri Mukherjee ultimately conceded the prayer for appointment of a Receiver. The learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore by an order dated December 4, 1978 appointed Shri Rabindra Nath Bhattacharyya, an Advocate to be the Receiver without remuneration and without security in respect of those properties, namely, premises Nos. 37, 38 and 38/1, Panditiya Road, Calcutta, a Receiver being so appointed Messrs. Steuart and Company Limited who was not a party to this suit filed an application for discharging the Receiver. The principal point on which reliance was placed on behalf of Messrs. 37, 38 and 38/1, Panditiya Road, Calcutta, a Receiver being so appointed Messrs. Steuart and Company Limited who was not a party to this suit filed an application for discharging the Receiver. The principal point on which reliance was placed on behalf of Messrs. Steuart and Company Limited in support of their prayer was that since the suit properties are situate within the jurisdiction of Tollygunge Police Station and since the Tollygunge Police Station is allotted to the jurisdiction of the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore by the District Judge under section 13 (2) of the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts' Act, 1887, the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or pass an order appointing a Receiver therein. This objection was upheld by the learned Subordinate Judge who by his order dated June 23, 1979, vacated the order of appointment of Receiver and directed the plaint to be returned to the filing lawyer for presentation before the appropriate Court. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff bank has preferred F. M. A. No. 561 of 1980. ( 5 ) SINCE the subject-matter in dispute in both the cases is the same we have heard the appeals together and we propose to dispose of the same by this judgment. ( 6 ) WE would first consider a common issue involved in both these appeals, namely, whether it would be just and proper to appoint a Receiver in respect of the suit properties or not. The fight is obviously triangular. Now it is the common case both of the plaintiff bank in the mortgage suit and Sri Sailendra Nath Mukherjee, the Executor and Trustee to the estate of the deceased C. Mackertich that a Receiver should be appointed but appointment of such a Receiver, however, has been strongly contested on behalf of Messrs. Steuart and Company Limited, the judgment-debtor in Title Suit Nos. 30 and 31 of 1953 who are still in possession by virtue of injunction obtained by them in their subsequently instituted suits, namely, Title Suit Nos. 121 and 122 of 1969 which are now pending in appeal. Mr. Steuart and Company Limited, the judgment-debtor in Title Suit Nos. 30 and 31 of 1953 who are still in possession by virtue of injunction obtained by them in their subsequently instituted suits, namely, Title Suit Nos. 121 and 122 of 1969 which are now pending in appeal. Mr. Ghosh appearing in support of the said judgment-debtor has already contended that when admittedly the said judgment-debtor is still in possession of the disputed properties and when under the decrees for recovery of possession they are liable only to pay a total amount of mesne profits amounting to Rs. 1,050/- and since they are ready and willing to pay that amount month by month there is no reason why a Receiver should be appointed to deprive them from realising the income arising out of the suit properties, particularly when the judgment-debtor claims that all the structures standing on the suit property were built by them. We are, however, unable to sustain this contention of Mr. Ghosh. It is very true that the estate of the late C. Mackertich has yet not taken delivery of possession in execution of the decrees obtained by late C. Mackertich as against the judgement-debtor. The judgment-debtor is undoubtedly still in possession but it cannot be denied at the same time that the judgment-debtor is still continuing in possession only by virtue of an order of injunction obtained from the Court as against the decree-holder. The judgment-debtor not only suffered decrees for their eviction but their suit for declaration that they are the sole and absolute owners of the structures standing on the suit premises has also failed in the trial court. Simply by filing an appeal against such a decree of dismissal of their suit they have successfully prevented the decree-holder from recovering possession for over 8 years and it is yet uncertain when that litigation would come to an end and the decree-holder would be able to recover possession. Therefore, it would be neither just nor proper to allow the judgment-debtor to enjoy the entire usufruct arising out of the suit properties amounting to more than Rs. 20,000/- a month only because the judgment-debtor offers to pay the decretal mesne profits of Rs. 1050/- a month. Therefore, it would be neither just nor proper to allow the judgment-debtor to enjoy the entire usufruct arising out of the suit properties amounting to more than Rs. 20,000/- a month only because the judgment-debtor offers to pay the decretal mesne profits of Rs. 1050/- a month. In our view, if the Court should protect the decree-holder's interest in respect of the usufructs as it would otherwise be difficult, if not impossible, for the decree-holder from recovering all these incomes which are now being appropriated by the judgment-debtor. Such being the position, in our view, it is a fit and proper case where a Receiver should be appointed so that the Receiver may make the realization and hold the money subject to the control of the Court to be disbursed in favour of the rightful owner as and when the litigation comes to an end. In our view, it will equally be in the interest of the plaintiff bank in the mortgage suit that such a Receiver should be appointed because in the event the bank gets a decree as against the estate of late C. Mackertich the income in the hands of the Receiver may well be applied for protanto satisfaction of the mortgage decree in case it is ultimately held in the suit between Steuart and Company Limited and the estate of late C. Mackertich that it is the estate of late C. Mackertich which is entitled to these incomes. ( 7 ) SUCH a Receiver was appointed in the mortgage suit but the order of appointment has since been vacated by the order under appeal in F. M. A. No. 561 of 1980. It has been so vacated on the technical objection that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit or pass an order directing appointment of a Receiver. It is not the dispute that the suit properties are situate within Police Station Tollygunge which under the allocation of business have been allocated by the District Judge to the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court. It is not the dispute that the suit properties are situate within Police Station Tollygunge which under the allocation of business have been allocated by the District Judge to the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court. Though under order of allocation made under section 13 (2) of the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts' Act, 1887, the local area covered by the Police Station of Tollygunge falls within the jurisdiction of the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Aliproe, we are unable to agree with the learned Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court Alipore, that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint filed before him. He being a Subordinate Judge appointed for the District of 24-Parganas, there was no fundamental lack of jurisdiction on his part to entertain the suit. Under the allocation of business the local are being allotted to the other learned Subordinate Judge the proper course in such cases was not to return the plaint but to transfer the suit to the appropriate Court of the other learned Subordinate Judge in anticipation of the sanction of the District Judge. The learned Subordinate Judge was, therefore, proceeding upon an erroneous view that since there was fundamental lack of jurisdiction on his part to entertain the suit, the order of appointment of Receiver passed by him had got to be vacated. The view so taken by him has been clearly disapproved by this Court in the case of (1) Jagabandhu Nandi v. Sivaprasad, 53 Calwn 529. Such being the position, we would set aside the said order and since the learned Additional District Judge did not dispose of the application for appointment of Receiver filed in Title Appeal No. 911 of 1973 on its merits but disposed of the same in terms of an interim order passed by this Court in F. M. A. No. 561 of 1980 we would set aside both the orders impugned in these two appeals. ( 8 ) IN allowing the appeals we appoint Shri Rabindra Nath Bhattacharya, an Advocate affiliated to Orr. Dignam and Company, Solicitors and Advocates, of 29, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta - 700 001, to be the Receiver in respect of the suit properties, namely, premises Nos. 37, 38 and 38/1, Panditiya Road, Calcutta, until the disposal of both Title Suit No. 100 of 1977 of the 2nd Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore and Title Appeal Nos. Dignam and Company, Solicitors and Advocates, of 29, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta - 700 001, to be the Receiver in respect of the suit properties, namely, premises Nos. 37, 38 and 38/1, Panditiya Road, Calcutta, until the disposal of both Title Suit No. 100 of 1977 of the 2nd Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore and Title Appeal Nos. 911 and 912 of the 2nd Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Alipore without remuneration and without security. He would collect all the rents and profits arising out of the suit properties including the compensation for the requisition of a part of these properties or any one of them. Out of such income he would pay all the outgoings by way of municipal taxes otherwise in respect of those properties and invest the balance in short terms deposit with Mercantile Bank Limited. In the event the plaintiff in the mortgage suit gets a preliminary decree the Receiver would pay out of the funds in his hand the accumulated mesne profits calculated at the rat of Rs. 1,050/- to the plaintiff-decree-holder in the mortgage suit which otherwise would have been payable to the estate of late C. Mackertich and also go on paying a sum of Rs. 1,050/- month by month out of the income so realized by him to the said plaintiff-decree-holder in the mortgage suit in protanto satisfaction of their decretal claim and hold the balance until the disposal of Title Appeal Nos. 911 and 912 of 1973 in the event those appeals are not disposed of by the time the mortgage suit is decreed. In the event Messrs. Steuart and Company Limited succeeds in getting a declaration sought for in their suits, namely, Title Suit Nos. 121 and 122 of 1969 in their appeals now pending, the said Company will be entitled to the entire accumulated income in the hands of decree-holder, the estate of late C. Mackertich. On the other hand, if they fail in their appeals the entire income in the hands of the Receiver should be utilized for protanto satisfaction of the mortgage debt as may be decreed and the balance, if any, would be paid to the decree-holder now represented by the Executor and Trustee, Sailendra Nath Mukherjee. On the other hand, if they fail in their appeals the entire income in the hands of the Receiver should be utilized for protanto satisfaction of the mortgage debt as may be decreed and the balance, if any, would be paid to the decree-holder now represented by the Executor and Trustee, Sailendra Nath Mukherjee. ( 9 ) THE Receiver will obtain the writ in his favour from the learned Judge in the trial court where the mortgage suit is now pending and will be subject to further directions from the said Court. The Receiver, however, will be entitled to appoint an Assistant to assist him in collecting the rent and keeping accounts on such remuneration as may be sanctioned by the learned Judge in the trial court who would be issuing the writ in favour of the Receiver and the Receiver will be at liberty to ask for sanction of any other necessary expenditure from the said Court. Receiver shall submit accounts to that Court every six months. ( 10 ) LET the hearing of Title Appeal Nos. 911 and 912 of 1973 be expedited and the learned Judge in the Court of Appeal below is directed to dispose of those two appeals positively within 6 (six) months of the communication of this order to the said Court if it is not totally impossible for him to do so. ( 11 ) THE appeals are disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. ( 12 ) DRAWING up of decrees in the appeals is dispensed with. Let the order be communicated to both the Courts below forthwith. ( 13 ) SINCE the appeals are disposed of, the application dated 24. 9. 80 filed in F. M. A. No. 633 of 1980 becomes infructuous and is dismissed accordingly. Chakravorti, J. : i agree. Judgment of the Court dated 13. 1. 81 made on application dated 23. 12. 80 in F. M. A. No. 561 of 1980. On December 19, 1980 we disposed of two miscellaneous appeals and we appointed a Receiver to collect the rent and profits out of the disputed property which happens to be the same in both the suits. Now pending the said appeals in this Court under an interim order of this Court a sum of Rs. On December 19, 1980 we disposed of two miscellaneous appeals and we appointed a Receiver to collect the rent and profits out of the disputed property which happens to be the same in both the suits. Now pending the said appeals in this Court under an interim order of this Court a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- which is a part of the usufruct of the disputed property was directed to be kept in deposit with the Mercantile Bank Ltd. in the name of M/s. Steuart and Company Ltd. in a Savings Bank account. Such deposit was directed made awaiting disposal of the appeal and final orders passed therein. In disposing of the appeal through oversight we failed to make any appropriate direction in respect of the said money. In our view, for the same reason on which we appointed a Receiver directing him to collect and hold the rents and profits out of the disputed property, the Receiver should be directed to take over the aforesaid sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- now lying in deposit with the Mercantile Bank Ltd. and hold the same on the same terms as incorporated in our order, dated December 19, 1980 as aforesaid. Such being the position, we allow the present application and in furtherance to our order, dated December 19, 1980 we direct the Receiver to take over the aforesaid sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- lying in deposit in the name of M/s. Steuart and Company Ltd. with the Mercantile Bank Ltd. Appeal disposed of of without any order as to costs. Chakravorti, J. : i agree.