Judgment 1. The Court: This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Second Assistant District, Judge, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 20 of 1991 on 2nd April, 1993, whereby the learned Assistant District Judge rejected the prayer for appointment of Receiver, made on behalf of the plaintiff, and granted an order for maintenance of status quo of the suit property. The plaintiff is appearing before this Court. Apart from the contesting Defendant/Respondent No.1, the other two defendants/respondents also have appeared through their respective learned advocates. 2. On the basis of averments in the plaint and copies of agreements annexed to the applications for appointment of Receiver and injunction it has been strongly contended, on behalf of the appellant and other supporting defendants/Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that this is a fit case where a Receiver ought to be appointed. The grounds in support of such a submission, appear to be that the property in suit is a joint family property, the family being a coparcenary, as and though purchased in the name of Defendant/Respondent No. 1 in the year 1966, since the date of construction of a building on the said land so purchased, the defendant has been realising rents from different tenants in different floors of the property, though by a Deed of family settlement, a copy of which has also been annexed, different floors are owned by different parties. Specific emphasis is given on the fact that the head of the family viz., the husband of the plaintiff/appellant and father of the defendants/respondents had signed all the deeds as an attesting witness. 3. Upon consideration of the respective submissions of the parties and upon consideration of the documents on which the plaintiff/appellant placed her reliance, it appears that, though the plaintiff and defendant/ Respondent No. 1 are related as mother and son and though the other two defendants are brothers and sister of defendant/Respondent No. 1 and as such, son and daughter of the plaintiff, there is no incontrovertible material to show that the ownership of the property did not belong to the Defendant/Respondent No. 1 exclusively. The recpitals in the documents on the other hand, prima facie, indicate absolute ownership of the defendants, even assuming that the pleaded case of moneys having been advance by the plaintiff and the Defendant/Respondent to be true, the interests of the said defendants may not go beyond that of lender. It is also admitted, so far as such documents are concerned, that the construction of the building was completed by the Defendant/Respondent No. I-may be with the loans and advance, apart from LIC, from Defendant No.2 and the mother. Thirdly it also appears to be admitted that the Defendant No. 1 had been realising rents from the alleged tenants in the suit property since the construction of the building, that is since about the year 1976 or near about and even after the death of the alleged Karta of the coparcenary in 1979, without any visible protest from any of the defendants/respondents. In the background of such facts, it is very difficult to allow a prayer by appointing a Receiver, which would have inevitable result of divesting the defendants of the custody of the property merely on asking. A mere filing of the suit itself does not entitle a plaintiff or a party thereto, to get a Receiver appointed on the basis of assertion that, ultimately in the suit, he may succeed and as such, his right has to be protected by appointment of Receiver. We have already indicated the facts and in the said facts, it will be improper on our part to say that it will be just and convenient to appoint Receiver. So far as the protection prayed for is concerned, that has been well granted by the order of the Trial Court, though we propose to modify the terms thereof by specifically injuncting the Defendant/Respondent No. 1 from disposing of, dealing with or encumbering the suit property in any manner and also by directing him to maintain regular accounts of the amounts realised by him from the alleged tenants and the expenses incurred by him out of the said amounts relating to the property so that, if at the end it is necessary, such account may be utilised for finding out any due to the plaintiff and the other two defendants. We accordingly so direct. 4. We accordingly so direct. 4. Since all the parties are appearing, we direct expeditious disposal of the suit, Since the Defendant No. 1 is appearing and since we are told that it is not possible for Defendant/Respondent No. 3 in file her written statement without certain particulars, which have been asked for in her petition, dated 17th of November, 1992. if such particulars have not already been furnished, the same may be furnished within two weeks from this date. If, however, the particulars have been furnished and necessary inspection has been taken, in that event, the Defendant No. 3 is directed to file her written statement within three weeks from this date. The Defendant No. 2 also is directed to file written statement within the said period. 5. The Court below will expedite the hearing of the suit so that the suit is heard out and disposed of, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order to the Court below. The Court below is permitted to refuse any avoidable prayer for adjournment. 6. Before parting with the case, we keep on record that the Defendant/Respondent No. 1 has assured to maintain his mother and infirm sister during the pendency of the suit and to pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the mother to enable her to meet the necessary expenses for herself and her infirm daughter. Payment of money to the mother as aforesaid, will be made through her learned advocate in the Trial Court against appropriate receipt, every month, within the seventh of the month. The action, taken on such assurance, will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 7. The appeal is disposed of in the manner as above. 8. There will be no order as to costs. 9. Observations made by us in disposing of the appeal will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the suit. 10. No formal decree need be drawn up in the appeal. 11. Let xerox copies of this order passed today be handed over to both the learned advocates for the contesting parties on the usual terms on their undertaking to apply for and obtain urgent certified copies. Jagdish Kumar Mathur, J.: I agree. Appeal disposed of with directions.