P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.
1. The first respondent-mortgagee filed a petition under Section 69-A(2) of the Transfer of Property Act, O.P. No. 331 of 1954 - and obtained an order appointing a receiver of the income of the mortgaged property. Subsequently, he filed an application (Application No. 1458 of 1955 in the said O.P. No. 331 of 1954) praying that directions may be given to the receiver to sell the mortgaged property by public auction. This application was opposed by the mortgagors inter alia on the ground that the application was not competent. The objection, however, does not appear to have been pressed properly. The aspect, which was urged before the learned Judge, appears to have been that O.P. No. 331 of 1954 was no longer pending and therefore no interlocutory application could be taken in the said O.P. Whatever may be the merits of this objection, there can be no doubt whatever that the other objection, which was raised on behalf of the mortgagors that the Court has no jurisdiction to make the order, is well-founded. The receiver appointed under Section 69-A is a special receiver appointed for a particular purpose, He has not got the status or the powers of a receiver appointed under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, pending a regular suit. Indeed Section 69-A(2) expressly says that a receiver appointed by the Court shall be deemed to have been duly appointed by the mortgagee. The powers of the receiver are mentioned in the subsequent sub-sections of Section 69-A. There is no provision in Section 69-A, or any other section of the Transfer of Property Act, or in the Code of Civil Procedure, under which a receiver appointed for a limited purpose under Section 69-A could sell the mortgaged property. The application of the first respondent was therefore misconceived and incompetent and ought to have been dismissed. The appeal is allowed. The first respondent's application- Application No. 1458 of 1955-is dismissed with costs. There will be no order as to costs in the appeal.
2. This order of ours dismissing the first respondent's application will not in any way prevent him from exercising such rights as he may have under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act.