Income-only receiver cannot be used as Trojan horse to get possession of a secured property for the purposes of sale

Application for interlocutory relief – Plaintiffs sought to sell properties belonging to the defendants - argued that the receiver was not validly appointed - defendants continued to occupy the land to the exclusion of the plaintiffs – s. 62 of the Registration of Title Act, 1964 – registered owner of the charges did no avail of this procedure and instead sought interlocutory relief with a view to sale of the land – fair questions to be tried – strong cases likely to succeed – adequacy of damages – balance of convenience – whether or to what extent the receivers may properly act at the same time for the mortgagor and the mortgagee – rent receiver said to have an implied right of possession – orders sought are prohibitory – plaintiff must make out a fair issue to be tried – real dispute is the extent of the receivers’ powers – receivers appointed to take possession of the properties to deliver possession to the mortgagee, so that the mortgagee can sell as a mortgagee in possession – income only receiver cannot be used as a Trojan horse - whether the receivers were entitled to take possession for a different purpose and at variance to that for which they had been appointed, namely the collection of income - argued that the plaintiffs had not proved the assignment of the debt - receivers had no right to possession in order to sell the property – orders sought would ultimately mean that the appointment of the receiver and their entitlement to sell the properties would be finalised – in effect application sought to seek summary judgment – application for interlocutory relief refused.