Asutosh Mookerjee, J.
1. This appeal is directed against an order for the appointment of a Receiver in a mortgage suit. The application for the appointment of a Receiver was made by the mortgagee. That application was supported by some of the defendants who, at the instance of the mortgagee, had joined in the execution of the mortgage, as they were the presumptive reversioners to the estate, which was granted by way of security by a Hindu widow in possession of the properties left by her husband. These defendants, though responsible under the mortgage instrument for repayment of the loan, have thus no present interest in the mortgaged property. The Court below was satisfied that the mortgagor had wasted the property and appointed a Receiver. The Court, however, considered the matter, not so much from the point of view of the mortgagee, as from that of the reversioners. This clearly was not the proper standpoint in the investigation of the case. When the mortgagee applies in his suit for the appointment of a Receiver, the primary question for consideration is, what steps should be taken to protect the mortgagee. Here the reversioners-defendants have taken advantage of the application by the mortgagee to secure a benefit to themselves, as if they themselves had instituted a suit to restrain the widow from improperly dealing with her husband's estate and had obtained an order for the appointment of a Receiver for the protection of their contingent interest. This much, however, may be charged against the lady that she did, on one solitary occasion, fail to pay the Government revenue punctually. But an undertaking has been given in this Court that the Government revenue will in future be paid at least seven days in advance of the date fixed for such payment, and the appellant has also agreed that in the event of default, the Receiver will take possession of the mortgaged properties. She has given a further undertaking that she will not, during the pendency of the suit, alienate the mortgaged property without the leave of the Court This entirely satisfies the mortgagee, But the reversioners have vehemently urged that the Receiver should be retained. We are unable to accede to this prayer. The reversioners have resolutely attempted to divert these proceedings from their true purpose and to secure an advantage for themselves by no means within the scope of a mortgage suit. In our opinion, the objections taken by the reversioners are entirely groundless.
2. The result is that this appeal is allowed in part; while the order appointing the Receiver is maintained, the order directing the Receiver to take possession is cancelled. In lieu thereof we direct that the Receiver do take possession, only if the appellant fails to carry out the undertaking to deposit the Government revenue, instalment by instalment, at least seven days before the date fixed for the payment thereof.
3. Let the order be sent down as early as possible.