1. The Subordinate Judge rightly was of opinion that the appellant's attachment of the decree obtained by the Receiver in O.S. No. 113 of 1919 was invalid for want of the leave of the court that appointed the Receiver. We accept the principle that an act done without the Court's Section to proceed against a Receiver could subsequently be validated as has been held by this Court in Ammu Kntty v. Manavikraman I.L.R. (1920) M. 793 and Jagana Sanyasiah v. Atchanna Naidu : AIR1921Mad624 and by the Calcutta High Court in Banku Behari Dey v. Harendra Nath Mukerjee (1910) 15 C.W.N. 54 and Sarat Chandra Bauerjee v. Apurba Krishna Roy (1911) 15 C.W.N.925 .
2. But in this case no step had been taken to validate the irregular attachment by the time that the Receiver assigned his interest as decree-holder to the innocent purchaser who is 1st respondent in this appeal, and therefore the appellant's right as an attaching creditor cannot be allowed to prevail over the rights of a bona fide transferee for consideration of the decree-holders interest. An attempt has been made to show that the Receiver had no power to assign the decree under the powers vested in him, but this contention cannot be maintained in view of the wide authority given by the vesting order of 18-4-1908, which expressly refers to the 'full powers' of Order 40, Rule 1.
3. The Appeal tails and is dismissed with costs.