JUDGMENT
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.
1. In this case, the Receiver filed a suit to recover the rent due to the inamdar, for the collection of which he was appointed as Receiver in another suit. The plaintiff in that suit claimed a decree for money charging the properties of the inamdar; and the Receiver was appointed before decree to collect the rents due to the plaintiff to obtain the realization of the amount for which he might have obtained a decree. The plaintiff obtained a decree for money and there is an appeal pending against that in this Court. Neither the termination of the suit in a decree nor the pendency of the appeal against that decree will put an end to the authority of the Receiver to realize the rents to collect for which he was appointed Receiver. It appears that the District Judge in whose Court the original suit was pending has, subsequent to the decree, continued the same Receiver means even if the appointment of the Receiver terminated with the termination of the suit, the District Judge had certainly power to make a fresh appointment in execution of the decree. The District Judge did not, therefore, act without jurisdiction in continuing the Receiver. In these circumstances, the judgment of the District Munsif dismissing the suit on the ground that the Receiver had no authority to sue for the recovery of rent is not right.
2. The suit will be sent down to the lower Court and that Court will pass a decree in favour of the Receiver in accordance with his findings on the other issues in the case. This will be the judgment in the other connected revision petitions.
3. The Receiver will be entitled to have his costs in the lower Court. There will be no costs here.
