1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge directing the appointment of a Receiver in respect of the Pedda Merangi estate. The plaintiff has obtained a mortgage-decree for a very large amount against the appellant. It is said that the personal remedy is outstanding but No. personal decree has yet been passed against the appellant. The allegation of the plaintiff is that the mortgaged property would not fetch even half the amount of the decree. Granting for arguments' sake that it is so, we do not see any reason why the Court should appoint a Receiver for property which is not the subject-matter of the suit. The appellant succeeded as reversioner to the estate of a certain minor and the Pedda Merangi estate descended to him from the minor after the mortgage suit was filed. In these circumstances, we do not see any justification for the appointment of a Receiver for Pedda Merangi estate and for depriving the appellant of the possession of that estate.
2. When there is no personal decree against the appellant and when there is no reasonable chance of a personal decree being passed against him in the near future, we do not see why the appellant should be deprived of the possession of the estate which is not in any way connected with the property in the suit.
3. We, therefore, set aside the order appointing a Receiver, but to prevent the appellant from alienating the property in order to defeat any personal decree that may be obtained by the plaintiff against him, we direct that he should be restrained by an injunction from alienating the whole or any portion of the Pedda Merartgi estate.
4. There was a conditional attachment pending the disposal of the Receiver application. If the attachment has lapsed, it will be open to the plaintiff to apply to the lower Court to attach the property and the Subordinate Judge will dispose of such an application on its merits.
5. The appellant will have his costs of the appeal here and in the lower Court.