The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale of property in the possession of a receiver is voidable and not void, and the Court has wide discretion in controlling property in custodia legis.

Mockett, J.

1. We will deal with these appeals in a common judgment, separating them however as convenient.

2. A.A.O. Nos. 411 and 412 of 1942. - The appellant is. the decree-holder and the respondent is the judgment-debtor, defendant 24 in O.S. No. 86 of 1916, Sub-Judges Court, Chittoor, which was a suit by a junior member of the Kalahasti Zamindari for maintenance against defendant 24. On 6th June 1918, there was a preliminary decree for Rs. 42,658-15-6 which was charged on the whole of the zamindari. In this appeal we are concerned with the sale of Peddakannali village, part of the zamindari. On 23rd November 1920, the final decree was passed. Appeals Nos. 58, 69 and 70 of 1919 were filed by various defendants against the preliminary decree. These appeals were dismissed on 3rd May 1927. E.P. No. 20 of 1930 was filed on 15th January 1930 and an order for sale of Peddakannali village was made on 28th March 1935. On 17th March 1934 one Srinivasa Ayyah was appointed receiver in a suit, O.S. No. 881 of 1914, which had been filed by one Simhachellarn. Srinivasa Ayyah was discharged in February 1936 and in the same month Simhachellam himself was appointed receiver. The sale proclamation regarding Peddakannali village was dated 30th September 1936. On 22nd January 1937 Simhachellam filed petitions for stopping the sale on the ground that he had been appointed receiver. This was dismissed on 1st March 1937. The sale was fixed for 26th January and on 21st January 1938 (Ex. D-20), the District Judge of Chittoor granted leave to proceed against Peddakannali village provided it was found to be subject to a charge by the executing Court. Simhachellam was discharged from his receivership in November 1938 and on 19th July 1939 in O.S.. No. 105 of 1925 one Srinivasalu Chetty was appointed receiver by the District Court, Chittoor. The sale of Peddakannali village was actually held on 30th September 1939. It is well to refer to some other litigation relating to this village. E.A. No. 385 of 1939 was filed before the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor for setting aside the sale dated 30th September 1939. On 27th October 1939 the present respondent made this application and the learned Judge ordered him to furnish security and on his failure to do so the Court dismissed his application to set aside the sale. There was an appeal, A.A.O. No. 411 of 1940, before King and Happell JJ. The learned Judges on 18th December 1941 agree with lower Courts conclusion, but noticed that the appellant took the point that the sale was void in that it had been effected without the previous sanction of the District Judge of Chittoor which it was contended was necessary because the Receiver Srinivasalu Chetti. was then in possession. The learned Judges set aside the orders of the lower Court and remanded the petition for disposal on this point. An application dated 4th March 1941 was made to the District Judge of Chittoor, E.A. No. 10 of 1941 in E.P. No. 6 of 1939 in O.S. No. 105 of 1925 to validate the sale of the village which had taken place on 30th September 1939. The learned District Judge on 6th August 1941 passed the following order : "I have already passed orders on a similar petition. Peddakannali has been sold in execution. It was in possession of a receiver of this Court in execution of a decree, and this Court permitted it to be sold. But when it was actually sold that receiver had been discharged and another receiver was in possession in execution of another decree. I will not express any opinion on the question whether sale is valid or invalid on that account. That is a question for the Sub-Court to decide. I would only say that this Court has absolutely no objection to the sale of this village and must not be considered responsible for any tactics of its receiver. I do not consider that there has been any contempt of Court in this case at all." This order does not appear to have been brought to the notice of King and Happell JJ. We read this order