Judgment : Dev Kant Trivedi, J. 1. THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd November. 1988 passed by Sri B. S. Yadav. Civil Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Suit No. 41 of 1985, whereby he allowed application under Order XL. Rule 1, C.P.C. moved on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and appointed Sri Uma Nath Gupta, Advocate as Receiver of the property in dispute. 2. PLAINTIFF-respondent No. 1 Mahant Ram Priya Das filed Suit No. 41 of 1985 against defendant-appellant Mahant Kaushal Kishore Sharan alias 'Phalahari Baba and defendant-respondents No. 2 to 8 for permanent injunction restraining defendant-appellant and defendant-respondents No. 2 to 5 and 8 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 relating to the properties situated In district Lakhimpur Kheri, Ghazlpur and Lucknow and belonging to Sri Raj Gopal Mandir Trust. The plaintiff respondent also sought for the relief of mandatory injunction requiring the delivery of possession of the properties of Sri Raj Gopal Mandir Trust situated at Ayodhya, district Faizabad. The relief of possession was sought for from defendant-appellant and defendant-respondents No. 2 to 5. The defendant-respondent No. 8 Rajesh Kumar was impleaded by means of an amendment. By amending the plaint the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 also sought for a declaration that he is the sole and exclusive Mahant and Sarvarakar of Sri Raj Gopal Mandir Trust and entitled to administer the movable and immovable properties of the trust. The case of the plaintiff-respondent Mahant Ram Priya Das is that Late Sri Madhu Sudan Das was the Mahant and Sarvarakar of Sri Raj Gopal Mandir Trust, Ayodhya having been so appointed by District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Misc. Case No. 3 of 69. A will was executed by Sri Madhu Sudan Das, whereby the plaintiff-respondent Mahant Ram Priya Das was appointed as successor and the will was delivered for safe custody to Sri Avadh Naresh Tewari. Advocate, defendant-respondent No. 2 and a receipt thereof was obtained. Mahant Sri Madhu Sudan Das died on 18.6.1985 leaving behind the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 as his successor, Sarvarakar and Mahant Ram Priya Das pleaded to have stayed at Ayodhya for some time and thereafter came to visit Lakhimpur where he was informed that Kaushal Kishore Sharan. defendant-appellant in collusion with defendant-respondents No. 2 to 5 has started professing to be the Mahant and Sarvarakar of Sri Raj Gopal Mandir Trust. defendant-appellant in collusion with defendant-respondents No. 2 to 5 has started professing to be the Mahant and Sarvarakar of Sri Raj Gopal Mandir Trust. The defendant-appellant and defendant-respondents No. 2 to 5 tried to squander away the properties of the trust Raj Gopal Mandir and they also tried to take possession of the properties at Lakhimpur, Lucknow and Ghazipur and as such the suit was filed. Defendant-respondent No. 8 Rajesh Kumar Das also professed to be the Mahant and Sarvarakar as successor of Mahant Madhu Sudan Das by virtue of a registered will dated 17th June, 1985 alleged to have been executed by Late Mahant Madhu Sudan Das. According to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Mahant Ram Priya Das. the will in question is fictitious and fabricated and that Kaushal Kishore Sharan had also never been installed as Mahant and that the photographs filed by Kaushal Kishore were of a functioning of which he was the chief guest. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 also pleaded that in his own life-time, Mahant Madhu Sudan Das had executed the will in his favour on 3rd February. 1981. but Awadh Naresh Tewarl. defendant-respondent No. 2 has withheld the will having colluded with the defendant-appellant. An application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for appointment of a Receiver. This application was moved on 25.5.1987. Earlier an application for temporary injunction was moved and an interim injunction was granted, which was. however, vacated on 13.9.1985 and F.A.F.O. filed against the said order is pending in this Court. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Mahant Ram Priya Das alleged that the valuable gold ornaments have been removed from the temple at Ayodhya, the silver coins have been taken out and other properties are likely to be misappropriated by the defendant-appellant and others. Objections against the said application under Order XL were filed on behalf of Kaushal Kishore Sharan alleging that he himself is the Sarvarakar and Mahant of Trust Raj Gopal Mandir. Ayodhya according to the trust deed having been appointed according to the custom of Sadhu Samaj on 1.7.1985 and the entire property of the trust including that situated in district Lakhimpur is in his possession. It was further alleged that a case under Section 395, I.P.C. was registered against the plaintiff-respondent and the plaintiff-respondent is facing prosecution. It was denied that the property of the trust was being in any way damaged. 3. It was further alleged that a case under Section 395, I.P.C. was registered against the plaintiff-respondent and the plaintiff-respondent is facing prosecution. It was denied that the property of the trust was being in any way damaged. 3. ANOTHER suit has been filed by Rajesh Kumar Das, defendant-respondent No. 8 in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad against the plaintiff-respondent and defendant-respondents for permanent injunction restraining the defendants of that Suit No. 129 of 1985 from interfering in his possession over the properties of Mandir Raj Gopal, Ayodhya, Faizabad. 4. THE learned Civil Judge after hearing the respective contentions of the parties passed the impugned order which has been challenged in the present appeal. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties. 5. IT has been urged on behalf of the defendant-appellant that since he is a duly appointed Mahant and Sarvarakar of Sri Raj Gopal Mandir Trust, IT was not open to the learned Civil Judge to have passed the impugned order and that in any case, the plaintiff had failed to show that he was the Mahant and Sarvarakar of the said trust, and, therefore, no order could have been passed for appointing the Receiver. IT is also urged on behalf of the defendant-appellant that since the plaintiff-respondent failed to make out a prima facie case, the order appointing the Receiver could not have been passed. According to the plaintiff-respondent, Mahant Ram Priya Das, he is the Mahant and Sarvarakar of Sri Raj Gopal Mandir Trust and he challenges the right and title of defendant-appellant as well as of defendant-respondent No. 8 Rajesh Kumar Das. The plaintiff-respondent claims that a will was executed on 3rd February, 1981 by Late Mahant Madhu Sudan Das and that the said will was kept in the safe custody of Sri Awadh Naresh Tewari Advocate, respondent No. 2 who also gave a receipt therefor. He alleges that since the will was not in his possession and since Sri Awadh Naresh Tewari has colluded with defendant-respondents No. 3 to 7, it has not been possible for him to produce the said will. IT is alleged on behalf of the defendant-appellant that no will was executed by Late Mahant Madhu Sudan Das in favour of defendant-respondent No. 8 Rajesh Kumar Das and the alleged will is fabricated. IT is alleged on behalf of the defendant-appellant that no will was executed by Late Mahant Madhu Sudan Das in favour of defendant-respondent No. 8 Rajesh Kumar Das and the alleged will is fabricated. IT is further alleged on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent Mahant Ram Priya Das that defendant-appellant Kaushal Kishore Sharan could not have succeeded Mahant Madhu Sudan Das as he belongs to another sect of Sadhu and that he is a Chela of Siya Raghunath Sharan and that the trustees had no power to appoint his successor, nor the defendant-appellant could have been made a Mahant by Sadhu Samaj as there was no custom to that effect. IT is further urged that defendant-appellant is a trespasser and that he has no right to act as Sarvarakar or Mahant of Trust Raj Gopal Mandir. IT has also been alleged that the defendant-appellant and defendant-respondents No. 2 to 8 have been trying to interfere with the properties of the trust and trying to damage the same. IT has been urged on behalf of the plaintiff that he has been the Mukhtar Aam of Mahant Madhu Sudan Das by means of a registered Mukhtarnama right from 17th October, 1980 and as early as on 19th March, 1983 Mahant Madhu Sudan Das had made an application to District Magistrate, Kheri intimating him that he had appointed Mahant Ram Priya Das as his successor by virtue of a will dated 3rd February, 1981. He had even made a request to the District Magistrate to give the amount of annual annuity of Rs. 30,598 to Ram Priya Das. Mahant Madhu Sudan Das had allegedly sent a letter to Manager, State Bank of India, Faizabad. Aminabad, Lucknow and Lakhimpur Kheri and Manager, Punjab National Bank, Lakhimpur Kheri, Manager, District Cooperative Bank, Faizabad and Ayodhya, Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur and Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ayodhya and Compensation Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri intimating them that Mahant Ram Priya Das had been appointed by him as his successor. On the other hand, the defendant-appellant has claimed to have been appointed as successor to and Mahant and Sarvarakar of Sri Raj Gopal Mandir Trust by a congregation of Sadhus with the consent of defendant-respondents No. 2 to 5, the alleged Trustees of Sri Raj Gopal Mandir Trust on 8th July, 1986. On the other hand, the defendant-appellant has claimed to have been appointed as successor to and Mahant and Sarvarakar of Sri Raj Gopal Mandir Trust by a congregation of Sadhus with the consent of defendant-respondents No. 2 to 5, the alleged Trustees of Sri Raj Gopal Mandir Trust on 8th July, 1986. Some photographs in this regard have been filed which, according to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Mahant Ram Priya Das are sheer fabrications and a case of misutilisation of papers. According to plaintiff-respondent Ram Priya Das, the defendant-appellant was the Chief Guest who had come to the temple to give discourses and was therefore garlanded not only by the Trustees but also by him, and the photographs in themselves are not sufficient to establish that the defendant-appellant was appointed Mahant and successor. IT is further urged on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent Mahant Ram Priya Das that nobody can be appointed successor or Mahant without any title and the appointment can be made either by the principal court of ordinary civil jurisdiction or in terms of the deed. According to the plaintiff-respondent, the appointment is neither in accordance with the trust deed, nor has been made by the District Judge, and. therefore, the congregation of Sadhus had no right whatsoever to appoint the defendant-appellant as the successor to Mahant Madhu Sudan Das. IT is urged on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that some of the Trustees have colluded with the defendant-appellant. IT is also urged on his behalf that the will in favour of defendant-respondent No. 8 is not worth being relied on. 6. ON the other hand, the right of the plaintiff-respondent to work as Mahant and Sarvarakar of the temple Raj Gopal Mandir Trust has been challenged by the defendant- appellant as well as on behalf of defendant-respondent No. 8 as well as defendant-respondents No. 2 to 5. Even a suit in this regard is pending at Ayodhya having been filed by Rajesh Kumar Das, respondent No. 8 and it was stated at the Bar that the said Suit No. 129 of 1985 is in final stages. Even a suit in this regard is pending at Ayodhya having been filed by Rajesh Kumar Das, respondent No. 8 and it was stated at the Bar that the said Suit No. 129 of 1985 is in final stages. Without entering into the merits of the respective contentions of the parties, we are of the opinion that it cannot, for the present, be said that there is no force in the allegations made by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 when he claims to be the successor of Mahant Madhu Sudan Das and Mahant and Sarvarakar of the Trust Raj Gopal Mandir. The plaintiff-respondent Ram Priya Das has raised a bona fide contention, whereby he claims to be the Mahant and Sarvarakar and refutes the status of the defendant-appellant Kaushal Kishore Sharan and defendant-respondent No. 8 Rajesh Kumar Das. He has bona fide bone of contentions supported by the Mukhtarnama. which is admitted to the defendant-appellant. He has also supported his claim by means of letters of Late Madhu Sudan Das addressed to the Managers of the different Banks and also to the District Magistrate. Lakhimpur Kheri. The prominence of the plaintiff-respondent is admitted even to the defendant-appellant Kaushal Kishore Sharan who claims that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was one of the persons present in the congregation of Sadhus on 1.7.1985. According to Kaushal Kishore Sharan and Das, the plaintiff-respondent Ram Priya Das not only garlanded on the occasion of 1.7.1985, but also blessed him. Thus, the plaintiff-respondent apparently was prominent amongst those who were present on 1.7.1985. We do not wish to dilate further on the point as our observations may prejudice the cause of the parties during the trial, but the fact remains that it cannot be said for the present that the plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case In support of his application under Order XL, Rule 1. It will be at a subsequent stage only that the title of the parties will be crystallised and decision will be taken regarding the status of the respective three contenders to the office of Sarvarakar and Mahant, but it cannot be said that the case for the present is wholly without any basis. 7. THUS, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff-respondent does have a prima facie case. 8. 7. THUS, we are of the opinion that the plaintiff-respondent does have a prima facie case. 8. IT is urged on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the plaintiff-respondent did not stake any order of interim injunction in F.A.F.O. No. 163 of 1985. Earlier the temporary injunction was granted In favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in this very case which was subsequently vacated. The mere fact that the plaintiff did not seek or did not press the application for interim injunction in F.A.F.O. No. 163 of 1985. the said fact cannot be used against the plaintiff-respondent as it goes to prove nothing. IT may be seen that the plaintiff-respondent applied for appointment of a Receiver and a Receiver was appointed even earlier to the impugned order. Moreover, the defendant-respondent No. 1 had simply sought for injunction in respect of the properties in the district of Lakhimpur Kheri, and in case he did not have any threat perspective, there was no need for him to press for interim injunction and to seek the interim Injunction in case he finds himself contended with the situation at the spot. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 had sought for the relief for possession with respect to the properties situated at Ayodhya, and, therefore, it cannot be said that he must have applied for interim injunction in respect of the said property. At any rate the mere fact that he did not seek the interim injunction in F.A.F.O. No. 163 of 1985, cannot be used against him. There is admittedly a tripartite dispute between Ram Priya Das, Kaushal Kishore Sharan and Rajesh Kumar Das with regard to the title to the properties of Sri Raj Gopal Mandir Trust and the three parties staked their respective claims to the said office. 9. IT has been specifically alleged by the plaintiff that the properties of the Trust are likely to be squandered and damaged, inasmuch as the valuable golden ornaments and silver coins have been misappropriated and that there is an apprehension of further mismanagement of the properties. Even to the defendant-appellant, it is admitted that a case under Section 395, I.P.C. and another under Section 380, I.P.C. with regard to the properties of the Trust have been registered. Thus, it cannot be said that the matters are as simple as are sought to be made out by the defendant-appellant. Even to the defendant-appellant, it is admitted that a case under Section 395, I.P.C. and another under Section 380, I.P.C. with regard to the properties of the Trust have been registered. Thus, it cannot be said that the matters are as simple as are sought to be made out by the defendant-appellant. In fact, there is serious, dispute between the parties and IT appears to us that one set of parties is in possession of the properties at one place, while the other set is in possession of the properties of the Trust at another place, and there is every likelihood of the confrontation between them which will ultimately cause irreparable damage to the properties belonging to the Trust. Hence, we are of the opinion that IT was wholly Just, expedient and convenient that the properties were taken In charge of by a Receiver in order to safeguard the interest of the Trust, deity as well as the party which ultimately is held entitled to the office of Sarvarakar and Mahant of Sri Raj Gopal Mandir Trust. The learned Civil Judge thus was wholly Justified In passing the impugned order in our considered view, it is the only viable course open in the totality of the circumstances of this case. We find no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. There is no force in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal. 10. THE appeal is hereby dismissed with costs and the impugned order is hereby confirmed. THE trial court is directed to take further action in the matter and in case the Receiver appointed vide the impugned order is not available or is unwilling to act as Receiver, the trial court will be at liberty to appoint another person as Receiver.