JUDGMENT Ellis, J. - This is an appeal at the instance of the Defendant and is directed against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of the 2nd Court at Chittagong dated the 5th of October, 1939, affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif of the 2nd Court at Pa (Chittagong) dated the 13th of June, 1939, in Title Suit No. 270 of 1939. The facts material for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows: Abdul Rahim Choudhury was the mutwali of the Estate of Arshad Ali Sardar which was an wakf estate which was held under the Plaintiffs at a jama of Rs. 36-1-0. The estate fell in arrears of rent and the Plaintiffs instituted the suit for rent in the year 1931 and obtained a decree against the mutwali as representing the wakf estate on the 14th of July, 1931. In July, 1934, the Plaintiffs started Rent Execution Case No. 901 of 1934 against the mutwali Abdul Rahim Choudhury. The property in suit was put up to sale on the 17th of November, 1934, and was purchased by the Plaintiffs in auction sale. The sale was confirmed in January, 1935, and delivery of symbolical possession was taken by the Plaintiffs on the 8th of May, 1935. 2. Meanwhile, on the 28th of February, 1933, the present Appellant was appointed receiver of the wakf estate in a suit between the mutwali and the other claimants for the mutwaliship of the estate. 3. The Plaintiffs came to Court on the case that although they took symbolical possession of the suit lands on the 8th of May, 1935, they prevented from taking actual possession of lands by the receiver of whose appointment they had no knowledge until June, 1937. 4. On these facts the Plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the lands in suit on declaration of their title thereto. They were resisted by the Defendant No. 1, the receiver, who claimed that he, as receiver, was not bound by the decree inasmuch as he was no party to the suit. He also claimed that execution was not taken with the leave of the Court and inasmuch as he was appointed by the Court his possession on that account could not be disturbed. Both the Courts below negatived the defence contentions and decreed the suit. He also claimed that execution was not taken with the leave of the Court and inasmuch as he was appointed by the Court his possession on that account could not be disturbed. Both the Courts below negatived the defence contentions and decreed the suit. Hence this appeal has been filed by the receiver Defendant Appellant, and the short point taken in this appeal is that the receiver's title has not been affected either by the decree or by the sale. 5. It is important to notice that in this case the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below virtually conclude the matter. 6. It is not disputed that the Plaintiffs sued the mutwali Abdul Rahim Choudhury for rent in Rent Suit No. 1317 of 1931 and obtained a decree against him. That decree was passed on the 14th of July, 1931, that is, two years prior to the appointment of the Defendant No. 1 as receiver on the 28th of February, 1933. 7. It has been found as a fact by both the Courts below that although the Appellant was appointed receiver on the 28th of February, 1933, in the litigation to which the Respondents were no parties, the Appellant took no steps whatsoever to notify his appointment as receiver to the Respondents who only acquired knowledge of his appointment in June, 1937. He did not make any attempt, on his appointment as receiver, to satisfy the decretal debt, nor did he take possession of the wakf properties as receiver, for, it has been found by both the Courts below that the mutwali Abdul Rahim Choudhury remained in possession of the wakf properties including the lands of the defaulting taraf and continued to realise rents from the tenants. 8. The facts then are that though he was on paper appointed receiver, the Appellant had never notified that fact to the persons interested, had never attempted to satisfy the amounts due from the estate and had never even taken possession himself of the lands in suit. 9. 8. The facts then are that though he was on paper appointed receiver, the Appellant had never notified that fact to the persons interested, had never attempted to satisfy the amounts due from the estate and had never even taken possession himself of the lands in suit. 9. My attention has been drawn to the case of Kanailal Jalan v. Manoo Bibi 29 C. L. J. 424 (1918) in support of the proposition that the rule that the possession of a receiver may not be disturbed without leave does not apply so far as third persons are concerned until a receiver has been actually appointed and is in possession. It is not enough that an order has been made directing the appointment of a receiver. Until the appointment has been perfected and the receiver is actually in possession, a creditor is not debarred from proceeding to execution. The facts in the case under report are apposite to the present case in which although the appointment had been made it had not been perfected and the receiver was not in possession. 10. The second case which, in my opinion, is in point is that of Karimannessa Khotun v. Fazlul Karim 40 C. L. J. 78 (1923) in which it is stated that the sale in execution of a decree of a property of the judgment-debtor in the hands of a receiver appointed in a partition proceeding, without the consent of the Court (the receiver not objecting), is not void, but, at most, merely an irregularity. This ruling is authority for the proposition that even if it be held that the receiver should have been made a party to the proceedings, failure to do so would merely be an irregularity, an irregularity which might be set aside by appropriate proceedings. This is a view which is supported by the case of Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb v. Bhubaneswar Mitra 27 C. W. N. 38 (1922). This is a view which is supported by the case of Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb v. Bhubaneswar Mitra 27 C. W. N. 38 (1922). Where in a mortgage suit an order was made appointing a receiver, but before the receiver took possession, the properties were sold in execution of a decree in another suit, the leave of the court which appointed the receiver not having been previously obtained, it was held that the sale of the properties of which a receiver has been appointed, without the leave of the Court which appointed him, is not void, but only voidable and liable to be set aside by appropriate proceedings. 11. On the facts as found in this case, in the light of the rulings to which reference has been made, I should hold substantively that the sale in execution was a valid sale, because although the receiver had been appointed, he never notified his appointment and did not take possession of the lands pursuant to his appointment and alternatively even if it be held that he should have been made a party, that, at most, is, a mere irregularity which could have been cured by an application under Or. 21, r. 90, a course which was not followed in the present proceedings. In the result then it must be found that there is no substance in this appeal which must be dismissed with costs.