K. RAMAMOORTHY ( 1 ) THE plaintiffs have filed this suit for a permanent injunction restraining the 21 defendants from alienating, selling, parting with possession or dealing with any portion of the suit property bearing Municipal No. 826-843. Chandni Chowk. Delhi. I. A. 8749/95 was filed for injunction. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs filed I,a 803/96 for the appointment of receiver with reference to the portions bearing mark Nos. B-l. A-l. A, A-2, A-3 anda-4in property bearing No. 826-843. Chandni Chowk. Delhi In para 4 of the petition, the following allegations are made :- "that in the meantime, the defendants No. 2 and 3 have acted in a shocking manner inasmuch as. in blatant violation of and inn complete disregard to the orders passed by this Hon ble Court, the said defendants have clandestinely entered into transactions with some unknown third parties for the purposes of alienating and disposing of the said portions of the suit property. The plaintiffs have now learnt that defendants No. 2 and 3 over-night removed various extremely valuable fixtures and items like furniture, decorations from the said portions of the suit property which included huge Belgun Cut Glass Chandeliers which over 80 years old and Italian marble tables, paintings and antique Furniture as also the Belgium Mirrors. The said defendants had even uprooted/removed some of the old carved wooden panel which were fixed/ embedded in the walls of the hall situated on the first floor of the property which was common/living room of the entire joint family. The said articles, furnitures and fixtures illegally removed would be market value of at least Rs. 30. 00 lakhs. The plaintiffs have now learnt that the said defendants are now proposing to part with possession of the said rooms /halls on the first floor to third parties for development of offices and shops. The plaintiffs humbly submit that the suit property is situated in the busiest commercial center of Delhi i. e. Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Even a small portion thereof is therefore extremely valuable in the market. On their recent visit the plaintiffs also leamt that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have taken over a house in D. L. F. Qutab Enclave Gurgaon and they have shifted all their belongings from room marked V-l to the said House. The plaintiffs are still trying to ascertain the details of the property acquired by defendant Nos. On their recent visit the plaintiffs also leamt that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have taken over a house in D. L. F. Qutab Enclave Gurgaon and they have shifted all their belongings from room marked V-l to the said House. The plaintiffs are still trying to ascertain the details of the property acquired by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in D. L. F. Qutab Enclave, Gurgaon and shall finish the same when available. " ( 3 ) IT is stated that the defendants 2 and 3 committed theft of the movable articles in the property and the plaintiffs had lodged a police complaint. According to the plaintiffs, the interim orders passed by this Court are not sufficient to ensure for the preservation and the maintenance of the suit property. ( 4 ) THE defendants filed a reply denying all the allegations. In paragraph 3, it is stated as follows "in reply to paragraph 3, it is respectfully stated that answering defendant has not been given a copy of the report of the Local Commissioner submitted to this Hon ble Court. In the circumstances the answering defendant does not know the manner in which the said local commissioner has dealt with various portions of the suit property. A copy of the said report on which reliance is placed by the applicant has also not been annexed to this application. It is however submitted that the answering defendant has possession over a portion of the suit property. " ( 5 ) IT is asserted by the defendants that the plaintiffs have not come forward with genuine reasons and just to tarnish the reputation of the defendants this suit has been instituted. A reference to the FIR would show the falsity of the claim of the plaintiffs. In the FIR it is stated that the plaintiffs came to know about the theft through somebody. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the defendants Mr. Aman Lekhi submitted that the defendants have absolutely no intention to violate the order of injunction passed by this Court. The plaintiffs have not made out any case for the appointment of receiver. The principles are well settled with reference to the consideration of the question of appointment of receiver in a given case. The plaintiffs have not at all stated as to how they will be prejudiced if the possession continued with the defendants. The plaintiffs have not made out any case for the appointment of receiver. The principles are well settled with reference to the consideration of the question of appointment of receiver in a given case. The plaintiffs have not at all stated as to how they will be prejudiced if the possession continued with the defendants. They also referred to the award passed in 1949 which is admitted by both parties that the property allotted to the defendants branch is in their possession and the plaintiffs cannot claim any right. ( 7 ) MR. Vipin Sanghi, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted that the defendants are trying to alienate the property through a friend of the defendants and if it is done the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Mr. Vipin Sanghi does not dispute that the rights of parties are referable only to the award and as per terms of the award the defendants are in possession of the properties allotted to them. But what he would contend is that on a construction of terms of the award and the schedules certain items of properties are to be kept in common and the suit proportions arc to be kept common. ( 8 ) I am not able to appreciate the arguments of the plaintiffs. I was taken through the award by both the learned counsel and I do not agree with Mr. Vipin Sanghi that the plaintiffs, prima facie, can have any right in the property allotted to the defendants and that is a matter to be decided at the time of the trial of the case. No case has been made out for the appointment of receiver. Therefore. IA. 803/ 96 is dismissed. ( 9 ) PLAINTIFFS filed IA. 1448/96 for preponing IA. 803/96 taking into account a few additional facts stated in that application. I do not find any necessary to go into the details mentioned in I. A. 1448/96 in view of the disposal of IA. 803/96. I. A. 1448/96 stands disposed of. IA. 8749/95 in S. No. 2037/95 Post the matter on 27th of April 1996.