Wadsworth, J.

1. In both these appeals the appellant is the purchaser from a mortgagor and the suit was filed by a receiver appointed to collect the mortgage debt and apply the proceeds towards the discharge of the debt due by the mortgagee in that suit. The only contention of law urged in these appeals is that the appointment of the receiver was invalid without the prior attachment of the mortgage debt and that therefore the receiver was not entitled to get a decree on the mortgage. Assuming that this is a contention open to the defendant in the mortgage suit, it seems to me that it is a contention which is devoid of substance. It is based on certain observations in Palikandy Mammad v. Krishnan Nair (1916)30MLJ361 , where it is stated that the- Court cannot appoint a receiver except where it has seisin of the property either by a suit being pending or by proceedings in execution of a decree made in a suit being pending and attachment having been made. These observations seem to be based on the wording of the old C. P. C, although they were made in a case arising out of an execution of 1912. The present C.P.C., does not appear to contemplate an attachment as a necessary prel