1. The two points taken in this case are that Ramasami Chetty was appointed Receiver only of the crops and not of the corpus of the property, and that as the property had been already attached the sale in pursuance of such attachment without leave of the Court appointing the Receiver was not vitiated.
2. Both these points are covered by the ruling in Levenia Ashton v. Madhabmoni Dasi which has been followed in Fraser v. Krishnaswami Iyer, and which we are also prepared to follow. We are of opinion that the Receiver was appointed in the present case for the property itself though the object of the appointment was to collect the rents and profits of the land. It is significant that the point now raised was not raised in the lower Court.
3. On the second point, as observed by Mookerjee, J. on page 439 of 11, C.L.J.,
The general rule is well settled that property in the hands of a Reciever is exempt from judicial process except of course to the extent permitted by the appointing Court.
4. Then English cases are cited for that position which is not disputed before us. Further, the learned Judge says:
It has even been affirmed that though an attachment was levied on property before the appointment of the Reciever it is within the sound discretion of the appointing Court to refuse to permit a sale of the property there under.
5. A purchaser in Court auction without previous leave to sell buys at his peril, for the sale may be cancelled.
6. Following these views, we agree with the lower Court that the sale was properly set aside in this case and we dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal with costs. One set to be divided between the respondents.