Judgment 1. This appeal has arised under Order 43 Rule 1 (s) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 26-7-2001 passed by Sub-Judge-III, Araria, in Title Suit No. 183/2000 whereby and whereunder the plaintiffs appellants prayer for appointment of Receiver as contemplated under Order 40 Rule 1 C. P. C. has been rejected. 2. Admittedly, the plaintiffs and the defendants are coming from the joint ancestors. Plaintiffs have claimed partition in respect of 7/26th share. According to the plaintiffs, as per averments made in the plaint as revealed from the impugned order that there was some difference in passing the joint family property jointly. But it was further claimed that about five years back the plaintiffs and the defendants have separated themselves in mess and business. But the joint family property mostly agricultural lands have not been partitioned by metes and bounds by now although, separate possessions are there. Hence, the joint family property partition was necessary. 3. The defendants have filed written statement and, according to them, there was no unity of title and the joint family had been disrupted long back and the properties had been divided amongst their coparcenors and in the Settlement records, although, the joint names were there, but in the remarks column a separate possession have been specifically mentioned. It has been further averred from the side of the defendants that there were separate dealings by the parties regarding the properties of their shares and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. A separate petition was filed under Order-40 Rule -1 C. P. C. by the plaintiffs for appointment of a Receiver on the ground that the defendants have indulged themselves in disposing the properties in excess of their shares and that by that way the suit properties are being decayed and destroyed and hence a Receiver is to be appointed. 5. The defendants have filed rejoinder stating that the plaintiffs have also indulged in selling the properties to the third parties and that none of the purchasers either from the plaintiffs or from the defendants are parties to the suit and when the purchasers have entered into possession of their purchased lands, then the appointment of a Receiver including those lands would be misnomer and rather would create some trouble. 6. 6. Considering the cases of both the parties the learned Court below held that in the facts and circumstances no prima facie case could be made out for appointment of a Receiver and regarding wastage and decay of the property it has been further held by the learned Court below that when the plaintiffs have also indulged in the same act by selling lands to the different persons they also stand on the same footing as that of the defendants. 7. The present appeal has been preferred against the order of rejection of prayer for appointment of Receiver. The learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that when various deprivations of enjoyment of the properties to the plaintiffs are there then for such deprivations even if no case of wastage and decay could be proved, then also appointment of a Receiver can be done and in that way he has referred to the three Judgments of this court, namely, AIR 1948 Patna 195, 1976 BBCJ (HC) 521 : (AIR 1976 Patna 366) and AIR 1978 Patna, 210. Before going into the merit of the present case the principle behind appointment of receiver is required to be stated. Practically, when a case is made out of decay and destroyance of the property in lis then for saving the property the Court is to take custody of the property and then as its representative a Receiver is to be appointed who remains answerable to the Court. As provided under Order-40 Rule 1 C. P. C. by going through various decisions given by Courts in India and also the Apex Court the following principles may be enumerated when a Receiver can be appointed : (i) it is the discretionary power of the Court, although, such discretion has to be applied judiciously. (ii) plaintiff must show that he has very excellent chances of success in the suit. (iii) he must not only show a case of adverse and conflicting claims to property, but he must show some emergency or danger or loss demanding immediate action & of his own right he must be reasonably clear and free from doubt. (iv) no order will be made to deprive the defendant of defacto possession. (v) the Court will usually refuse to interfere unless his conduct has been free from any blame. Regarding the discretionary power of the Court, I would discuss it afterwards. (iv) no order will be made to deprive the defendant of defacto possession. (v) the Court will usually refuse to interfere unless his conduct has been free from any blame. Regarding the discretionary power of the Court, I would discuss it afterwards. 8 First of all, let us discuss the plaintiffs case as could be shown from the side of the plaintiffs for the purpose of appointment of a Receiver. As such the plaintiffs case should not be made at par as plaintiffs case for the purpose of injunction or otherwise regarding the success in the case /lis. Here, for appointment of a Receiver the plaintiffs must show a definite case that they have got a very good chance of success in the suit itself. In the present case it appears from the pleadings as has been revealed in the impugned order that the plaintiffs have admitted separation in mess but there was no partition by metes and bounds. On the other hand, there is a case from the side of the defendants that already there was partition and prima facie the same could be found out from the remarks column of the Revenue records and also from the fact that there were separate dealings by the parties. Separate dealings by the parties practically is admitted. Now, the plaintiffs in that way cannot be said that they have got an excellent case for success in the suit/lis. The matter requires further adjudication. 9. Secondly, in a Partition suit neither injunction prayer nor prayer for Receiver are being entertained by the Courts because even if the contention of the plaintiffs that there is jointness of the property then till a partition is arrived at every co-sharer have got right over every inch of the land and in that way appointment of a Receiver deprives from the peaceful possession of the parties. Only in the very limited cases deprivation of enjoyment of a co-sharer in a Partition suit are considered to be good ground for appointment of a Receiver as has been done in the cases of Patna as mentioned in those rulings. But in those cases the property was always found by the Courts to be joint. Here, such finding was yet to be made out atleast primafacie. 10. But in those cases the property was always found by the Courts to be joint. Here, such finding was yet to be made out atleast primafacie. 10. In the case of Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Sinha V/s. Rajeshwar Prasad Narain Sinha, reported in AIR 1948, Patna, 195, it was held that deprivation from enjoyment of joint family properties can be a ground for appointment of a Receiver. It was also held that in a Partition suit regarding the joint family property Receiver can only be appointed by consent and the family property only consist of land unless special circumstances as waste or decay could be proved. In that case deprivation was held to be one of the grounds for appointment of a Receiver. In very stringent cases when during the pendency of a case the defendant was found to be scarce and suppressing the real fact from the Court and even when a Survey knowing Commissioner went from the Courts end then also the defendant made suppression and in such contingent circumstances when the intention was found to be bad, then a Receiver is allowed to be appointed that too in the special circumstances of that case. In the case of Ram Kishore Das V/s. Balaram Sah, reported in AIR 1978 Patna, 210, the ingredients of appointment of a Receiver as mentioned above has been reiterated and it was held that only because the defendant was in peaceful possession of the property, can never be a ground for the purpose of rejection of appointment of a Receiver while other ingredients were present. In the case of Kamal Chowdhury V/s. Rajendra Chowdhury, reported in 1976 B. B. C. J. (HC) 521 : (AIR 1976 Patna 366), the appointment of Receiver was held to be proper when one of the co-sharers was found to be in possession of the whole of the property depriving other co-sharers. In that case it was observed that waste or mismanagement may not be proved. None of those cases fit in the present case. 11. I must observe here that in Bihar Sub-ordinate Judiciary in almost in all the Partition suits a petition is invariably filed for appointment of a Receiver and such petitions are not meeting the ingredients required for the purpose of appointment of a Receiver, and by that way times are being wasted. 11. I must observe here that in Bihar Sub-ordinate Judiciary in almost in all the Partition suits a petition is invariably filed for appointment of a Receiver and such petitions are not meeting the ingredients required for the purpose of appointment of a Receiver, and by that way times are being wasted. Appointment of a Receiver is a stringent matter and that becomes more stringent in a Partition suit. In the present case from the pleadings it could not be found that there was any definite case of unity of title when both the parties indulged in separate dealings. The purchasers are admittedly in possession in their purchased properties which were also included within the suit itself and those purchasers are not parties to the suit nor the purchased lands have been shown separately. 12. In that way, considering all pros and cons of the matter, I am of the view that the learned Court below has rightly rejected the prayer for appointment of a Receiver and there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed having no force. Appeal dismissed.