JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - This appeal has been preferred against an order rejecting an application under Order 40, Rule 1, C.P.C. for appointment of a receiver in respect of the suit property. 2. The appellants as Plaintiffs brought Title Suit, No. 133 of 1981 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Puri for partition of immovable properties. They filed an application for appointment of a receiver in respect of the suit property on the allegation that the defendants were threatening to cut away the standing crops from the suit lands and to cause waste and damage to the house and the fruit bearing trees. The defendants filed counter contending, inter alia, that the Plaintiffs were not residing in the suit village and that they have been residing at the house of the father of Plaintiff No. 3 at village Aingole. They also contended that the Plaintiffs did not grow any crop on the suit land and so the question of removal of any crop did not arise. The allegations that the defendants were threatening to out away the trees and to cause waste and damage to the suit land were denied. It was contended that the Plaintiff No. 2 had executed sale deeds in respect of a portion of the suit lands in favour of some persons and had entered into agreements with some other persons in respect of other portions of the suit land. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case come to the conclusion that it was not just and convenient to appoint a receiver and accordingly rejected the application under order 40, Rule 1, C.P.C. aggrieved by this order the Plaintiffs have come up in appeal. 4. The extent of the suit lands is 6. 02 acres including the homestead and agricultural lands. As per the geneology given in the Plant, Purusottam, Jambu and Sambhu are three brothers. Purusottam and Jambu are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, Plaintiff No. 2 is the widow and Plaintiff No. 1 is the minor son of the deceased Sambhu. It is alleged that the three brothers have 10 annas 8 pies share in the suit property and the remaining 5 annas and 4 pies share belong to defendant No. 3 Antarjyami. Out of the above 10 annas 8 pies interest the Plaintiff appellants claim ?rd share. 5. It is alleged that the three brothers have 10 annas 8 pies share in the suit property and the remaining 5 annas and 4 pies share belong to defendant No. 3 Antarjyami. Out of the above 10 annas 8 pies interest the Plaintiff appellants claim ?rd share. 5. In a suit for partition between the members of a Hindu joint family, the court will not as a general rule appoint a receiver where the family property consists of immovable property. but a receiver may be appointed if there is a prima facie case of misappropriation by the manager of the family. This is the rule which governs generally appointment of receiver in disputes between members of a Hindu joint family. 6. Judging in the light of the principles mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the Plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie case of misappropriation. The petition for appointment of receiver is not supported by affidavit. The allegations made in the petition about waste and damage are some what vague in character More existence of apprehension in the minds of the plaintiffs that the defendants would misappropriate the usufructs and cause waste and damage to the suit lands is not alone sufficient to justify an order for appointment of receiver. The learned subordinate Judge after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case came to held that it would not be just and convenient to appoint a receiver. It is not shown that the learned subordinate Judge exercised his discretion in a capricious or arbitrary fashion. 7. There is, therefore, no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. I would however direct the learned Subordinate Judge to take up the suit for hearing as expeditiously as possible. Final Result : Dismissed