IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.736 of 2008 ANIL KUMAR, son of Sri Ram Nihora Thakur, Resident of vill.Dhanushi, P.S. Runnisaidpur, Distt. Sitamarhi, at present Mohalla-Sri Krishna Nagar, Ward No.4, P.S. Dumra, District- Sitamarhi. -----------Appellant Versus 1. SUNIL KUMAR, son of Ram Nihora Thakur, resident of vill.Dhanushi, P.S. Runnisadipur, Distt.-Sitamarhi, at present Mohalla-Sri Krishna Nagar, Ward No.4, P.S. Dumra, District-Sitamarhi. 2. Ram Nihora Thakur, son of Late Tokhan Thakur, 3. Ram Kishori Devi, wife of Ram Nihora Thakur, Both 2 & 3 resident of vill.-Dhanushi, P.S. Runnisaidpur, Distt.-Sitamarhi. 4. Sobha Dwivedi, daughter of Ram Nihora Thakur, wife of Sri Ram Lala Dwivedi, resident of vill.Chandiha, P.S. Piparahi, Distt.-Sheohar, at present Mohalla-Sri Krishna Nagar, Ward No.4, P.S. Dumra, District-Sitamahi. 5. Seema Rani, daughter of Ram Nihora Thakur, wife of Ram Ranjan Thakur, resident of vill.-Baingra, P.S. Benipatti, Distt.Madhubani, at present Mohalla-Rajopatti, P.S. and District-Sitamarhi. ----------Respondent 04. 21.04.2010. (1) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant under Order 41 Rule 11. (2) This Misc. Appeal is directed against the Order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the learned Sub-Judge I, Sitamarhi in Partition Suit No.128 of 2007 whereby learned Court below has allowed the application under 40 Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff and appointed defendant No.1, Ram Nihora Thakur as a receiver of the suit property. (3) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Court below has wrongly appointed the defendant No.1 as receiver of the suit property. According to the learned counsel, the Court below should have appointed a 3rd party, i.e., stranger to the family as receiver. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are in collusion, so the defendant No.1 2 could not have been appointed as receiver. (4) It appears that the plaintiff respondent No.1, Sunil Kumar, filed the suit for partition of his 1/6th share. The father of plaintiff, namely, Ram Nihora Thakur was made defendant No.1. The appellant, Anil Kumar is also son of defendant No.1, Ram Nihora Thakur. The wife of Ram Nihora Thakur and two daughters of Ram Nihora Thakur are other defendants-respondents. Therefore, in this suit only the father and sons and daughters are parties. (5) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has considered the consent given by the other defendants for appointment of receiver and moreover the appellant is also not objecting to the appointment of receiver but the only objection is that the stranger to the family should be appointed and not father of the appellant. In my opinion, this objection is not sustainable for simple reason that the suit property are agricultural lands and the father being the eldest member in the family has been appointed as a receiver. In partition suit, when the agricultural lands are involved, it is not safe to appoint a person stranger to the family. (6) The learned Court below, after considering the materials available on record, has rightly appointed the defendant No.1, as the receiver. In this Appeal, the appellant failed to show any reason for interference in the impugned order. (7) In the result, I find no merit in this Appeal and accordingly this Misc. Appeal is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)