Das, J.I cannot conceive of more appropriate grounds for the appointment of a Receiver. One Behari Das who was the mahant of the endowment died on the 31st January 1926. Various persons claim to be the successors in interest of Behari Das. On the 17th February 1926, a suit was filed by the present - respondent for declaration of his title as the successor of Behari Das. Defendant No. 3, the appellant in this Court, contested the suit on the ground that he has succeeded to the office and is, in fact, in possession of the endowed properties.

2. In these circumstances the plaintiff applied for the appointment of a Receiver. The learned Judge dealing with the point says that:

when there are so many rival claimants the I situation is, no doubt, fraught with possibilities of waste and mismanagement.

3. I entirely agree and I would add that even if there was no allegation of waste and mismanagement, the fact that the property is more or less in medio is sufficient to vest a Court with jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver. The Defendant No. 3 says he is in possession. The learned Subordinate Judge dealing with the matter doubts that position; but in any view of the case, I think, that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is right and must be affirmed. It will be open to the guardian of Defendant No. 3 as it will be open to the plaintiff and the other defendants to offer themselves as Receiver; but the question of the appointment of the Receiver rests with the learned Subordinate Judge and I must not be understood as in any way fettering his discretion in the matter; but I think that, in the circumstances of the case the hearing of the suit should be expedited.

4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Scroope, J.

I agree.