challenged in A.S.40 of 2003. Passing of the final decree is also stayed in the appeal. As per the preliminary decree, defendants 16 to 20 are liable to pay the share of profits due to the other sharers. Under Ext.P3 order, learned Munsiff found that the income from the property would be around Rs.44,655/- and as per the share under the preliminary decree, petitioner and others(defendants 16 to 20) will be entitled to only Rs.8931/and are liable to pay share of profits of Rs.35,724/- to the others, it is better to auction the income in between the sharers. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner, no Receiver was appointed, either when the suit was pending before the trial court or in the first appeal. Even as per the preliminary decree, defendants 16 to 20 are liable to pay share of profits of other defendants. In such circumstances, learned Munsiff should not have disturbed possession of petitioners, so long as there is no allegation that the property which would be available to the share of defendants 16 to 20, will not be sufficient enough to pay the share of profits, if they are allowed to continue to take income from the whole property. In such circumstances, Ext.P3 order is quashed. Plaintiffs are entitled to move an application for appointment of Receiver or
