1. The plaintiff sues for the recovery of the amount due on a hypothecation bond executed by the 1st defendant in favour of one Kunhi Pakki Mosaliar. In execution of a decree against Kunhi Pakki, the debt due on this bond was brought to sale and purchased by the plaintiff. The only contention, with which it is necessary to deal in second appeal, is that, as the debt was attached in the manner laid down by Section 268 of the Code of Civil Procedure (old) and not in the manner provided for the attachment of immoveable property, the plaintiff is not entitled to enforce the sale of the hypothecated property. This point was definitely decided by this Court in Muniappa Naick v. Subramania Ayyan 18 M. 437 : 5 M.L.J. 60 where it was held that, assuming that the proper mode of attachment where it is intended to make the security for the debt available for the judgment-debtor, is to attach it as immoveable property, the failure to conform to the provisions of Section 274, Civil Procedure Code, would only be an irregularity and that the purchaser would obtain a valid right to enforce the security notwithstanding the absence of attachment according to Section 274, Civil Procedure Code.