VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.)HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)THIS appeal has been preferred at the instance of defendants -appellants against: the impugned order dated 5.3.2003 by Sub -Judge VIII in Title Partition Suit No. 41 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the petition of the plaintiffs -respondents to appoint receiver in respect of the suit property was allowed, though the said impugned order does not speak regarding the appointment of any receiver therein. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the suit property is the self -acquired property of original defendant Abdul Kadir, the natural father of the parties to this case and the respondents cannot have any right and title in respect thereof in the life time of Abdul Kadir and, therefore, the question of any appointment of receiver does not arise in this case.
The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the construction was made on the self -acquired land of Abdul Kadir by virtue of the fund provided by the respondents and by virtue of that the respondents are entitled to have shares in the said property and there is subsequent event that said Abdul Kadir has died during the pendency of this case and the respondents have share in the suit property and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order of appointment of receiver.

(3.)THE respondents have filed Title Suit No. 41 of 1997 for metes and bounds partition of the suit property impleading Abdul Kadir as a party defendant.