JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal arises out from the order dated 17.11.1995 passed by learned District Judge, Pratapgarh appointing receiver in exercise of his powers u/O. 40 R. 1, CPC and granting temporary injunction u/O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2, CPC. 2. I propose to refrain from giving my views on legal questions involved in the present suit lest that may prejudice the case of the either party. 3. It is alleged by the plaintiff-respondents in the plaint that the disputed agricultural land was initially settled with Shri Kishore Singh and after his death it was re-settled with his eldest son Ummed Singh in representative capacity. The following pedagoguery is disclosed in the plaint Ummed Singh (died) Mohan Singh (died) Rup Singh (died) Karan Singh (died) 1. Bahadur Singh 1. Ram Singh 1. Bharat Singh 1. Shambhoo Kunwar (widow) 2. Jaswant Singh 2. Deulhe Singh 2. Raghuveer Singh 2. Ranjeet Singh 3. Ranveer Singh 3. Rajendra Singh 4. Kalu Singh 5. Fateh Singh SHRI KISHORE SINGH 4. It is further averred in the plaint that although the disputed agricultural land was recorded in revenue records in representative capacity of Shri Ummed Singh yet all the descedents of Kishore Singh were coming in possession over their respective shares through family settlement. Shri Ummed Singh had executed sale-deed in favour of his three sons Bahadur Singh, Jaswant Singh and Ranveer Singh on 5.4.1973 which is void ab initio on the ground inter alia that no consideration was paid by his sons and secondly that Ummed Singh being 'Carta of the family had no legal necessity to execute the said sale-deed in favour of his three sons, named above. 5. On the basis of aforesaid facts and circumstances, suit for declaration, partition and cancellation of sale-deed dated 5.4.1973 was filed along with an application for appointment of receiver and grant of temporary injunction. 6. After service of notice the defendant appellant opposed the application for appointment of receiver and for granting ad interim injunction before the learned trial Court. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court allowed the application and ordered Tehsildar Pratapgarh to be appointed as receiver and granted ad interim injunction restraining defendant-appellants from raising construction, changing character of the land from agriculture land to residential land and to maintain status quo as existed on the date of order till pendency of the suit. 8. 8. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the defendant-appellants have filed this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. R.R. Nagouri, at the first instance, contended that the Court below has committed an error in appointing Tehsildar, Pratapgarh as a receiver of the agricultural land in dispute without recording a positive finding whether it was just and convenient in the present case to appoint him as a receiver. Mr. Nagouri further contended that the appointment of receiver could be made by the Court only in accordance with the provisions of 0. 40 R. 1 CPC not otherwise. In the instant suit, it was neither just nor convenient to appoint receiver, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he placed reliance on a decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in T. Krishnaswamy Chetty v. Thangavelu Chetty & Ors., AIR 1995 Mad. 430 & another, decision rendered by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in S.B. Industries Freegung & Anr. v. United Bank of India & Ors., AIR 1978 All. 189 .Learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff respondents refuted the aforesaid arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and supported the order impugned. In support of the order impugned he placed reliance on a decision rendered by Patna High Court in Kamal Chaudhary & Anr. v. Rajendra Chaudhary & Ors., AIR 1976 Patna 366 , and a decision rendered by the Apex Court in Maharaj Jagat Singh v. Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 1721 . 10. It is true that in order to justify the appointment of receiver, the plaintiff must establish a reasonable prima facie possibility that the plaintiff will ultimately succeed in obtaining the relief claimed in the suit. The requirement thus is that he must establish a good prima facie case. It is also to be imbibed that the appointment of a receiver u/O. 41 R. 1 CPC, as a general rule, discretionary and not as a matter of right hence a Court would make an order for appointment of a receiver with great care and caution. The requirement thus is that he must establish a good prima facie case. It is also to be imbibed that the appointment of a receiver u/O. 41 R. 1 CPC, as a general rule, discretionary and not as a matter of right hence a Court would make an order for appointment of a receiver with great care and caution. In a case where the remedy of appointment of receiver seems necessary to prevent fraud, to protect and preserve the property against an imminent danger of loss in value, destruction, squandering, wastage or removal from jurisdiction; the Court may appoint a receiver. 11. In the present case, the learned trial Court has recorded a. categorical finding in its order impugned that although the land in dispute is agricultural land on spot and so recorded in revenue records and the defendant-appellants have not paid conversion charges to the State Government under the Rules for changing it into abadi land yet they are taking hasty steps to fill the pits of the land, levelling, earmarking the roads over the disputed land, entering into agreements of sale with other persons for raising constructions. The learned trial Court has recorded a prima facie case in favour of plaintiff-respondents. 12. In my considered opinion, the finding recorded in paragraph 17 by learned trial Court brings the present case within the fold of expression 'just and convenient' used u/O. 40, R. 1 CPC and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable. 13. It is next contended by learned counsel Mr. Nagouri that since the trial Court had already issued an ad interim injunction order till pendency of the suit, therefore, there was no occasion for it to order the appointment of Tehsildar, Pratapgarh as a receiver. There is no such law that the issue of a temporary injunction affects the right of the plaintiff to get the receiver appointed. A receiver can be appointed even after the issuance of injunction if exigencies of the situation require it and the Court feels that it would be just and convenient to make. an order in that respect. Accordingly, I am not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants that simply because an ad interim injunction. had been issued, the Court below had no jurisdiction to order the appointment of receiver in the present case. 14. an order in that respect. Accordingly, I am not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellants that simply because an ad interim injunction. had been issued, the Court below had no jurisdiction to order the appointment of receiver in the present case. 14. The preponderance of the decisions cited at the Bar lead towards a conclusion that in a partition suit when one co-owner occupies the whole property and excludes other co-owners from their respective shares in the joint Hindu family property then, in such a situation, a case of appointment of receiver is made out. In the present case, the lerned trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff-respondents have successfully established that the agricultural land in dispute was in danger of being wasted, dissipated or dealt with otherwise than in accordance with law. The learned trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons in support of the aforesaid finding with which I am at one. 15. It is well to remember that appointment of receiver u/O. 40 R. 1 CPC being a discretionary power of the trial Court cannot be interfered by appellate Court unless some compelling reasons exist to do so. Nothing in this case has been brought to my notice which may lead to hold that the learned trial Court has exercised its discretion in appointing Tehsildar Pratapgarh as receiver u/O. 40 R. 1 CPC illegally. 16. It is made clear that Tehsildar Pratapgarh will act only as agent of the Court for the safe custody and management of the property during pendency of the suit. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that agricultural operation over the land in dispute is not possible.For the reasons stated above, instant appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with a direction to the learned trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******