JUDGMENT The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents for a declaration and possession that he is the owner of House No. 19 (old No. 21), Ward No. 7, Meerabai ward, Uchechra, Tahsil Nagod, district Satna. The property in suit was claimed under the will, dated 11.6.1982, executed by one Hiralal, who was admitted to be the owner of the suit properties. The defendants-respondents have denied execution of the will by Hiralal in favour of the plaintiff. It is also contended that defendant No. 3 has put a lock over the suit house and the defendants are in actual physical possession of the same. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-appellant filed an application under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, making a prayer for appointment of the receiver of the suit property during the pendency of the suit and also an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., claiming an injunction that during the pendency of the suit, respondent No. 19, who is the tenant of the suit property, should not pay rent to the other defendants. Admittedly, as per the plaint allegations, the defendants were in possession of the suit property at the time of the institution of the suit. The plaintiff has said that the defendant No. 19 is in possession, although his possession is said to be that of a tenant. On the other hand, the defendants have denied the execution of the will by Hiralal and consequent acquisition of right, title and interest by the plaintiff. They have claimed that they are in actual physical possession of the suit property. If the property is in possession of the defendants it is for the tenant to decide as to whom rent has to be paid and no injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiff, particularly so, when the right, title and interest in the suit property are yet to be adjudicated. As far the application under Order 40, Rule 1, C.P.C., for appointment of the receiver is concerned, admittedly, the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. The object and purpose of appointment of the receiver is generally to preserve the subject-matter of the litigation pending judicial determination of the rights of the parties. As far the application under Order 40, Rule 1, C.P.C., for appointment of the receiver is concerned, admittedly, the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. The object and purpose of appointment of the receiver is generally to preserve the subject-matter of the litigation pending judicial determination of the rights of the parties. When there is no emergency or danger or loss, demanding an immediate action to save the property, a receiver cannot be appointed. Nothing has been shown by the plaintiff that there is an immediate danger to the property in dispute to exercise the power under Order 40, Rule 1, C.P.C. As it is, this power has to be exercised by the Court sparingly and in case of immediate danger of the suit property being wasted or lost. The trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove any of the necessary ingredients necessary for exercising the power in favour of the plaintiff. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee as per schedule, if certified.