Judgment :- 1. In these second appeals only a short question is raised; and that relates to the interpretation of S.33 of the Travancore Chitties Act of 1120. The appellant obtained an assignment of two chitty hypothecation bonds from the foreman and instituted two suits against the subscribers, who executed the bonds. In one of the suits, namely, O. S. No. 742 of 1956 giving rise to S. A. No. 581 of 1961, the first defendant executed the bond; and in the other, (O. S. No. 744 of 1956 giving rise to the other second appeal, defendants 1 and 2 executed the bond. In the earlier suit the second defendant is the foreman; & in the later suit the third defendant is the foreman. The Munsiff held that because of S.33 of the Chitties Act, the suits against the executants of the bond should fail: however, she granted a decree for the amounts against the foreman. On appeal, the lower appellate court dismissed the suits in their entirety. In second appeal, I have to consider whether decrees have to be passed, and if decrees have to be passed, against whom. 2. S.33 (1) prohibits the transfer of a right to receive subscriptions by the foreman from prized subscribers without previous sanction of the Registrar. The sub-section does not deal with the consequence of such a transfer without sanction. Provision is made for that in sub-section 2, which says that such a transfer will he voidable at the instance of a non-prized or unpaid prized subscriber, if it delays or defeats him. Sub-section 2 makes it abundantly clear that sub-section 1 does not make the bonds executed contrary to the prohibition absolutely void. It is only voidable as contemplated by sub-section 2. It is clear that the provision is intended to protect the rights of non-prized or unpaid prized subscribes; & at their instance alone can such a transfer be set at naught. In these cases no attempt has been made by any non-prized or unpaid prized subscriber to avoid the transfer. Therefore, the transfers in these cases are good; and the transferee can proceed under the bond against the executants and recover the moneys thereunder. 3. In these cases no attempt has been made by any non-prized or unpaid prized subscriber to avoid the transfer. Therefore, the transfers in these cases are good; and the transferee can proceed under the bond against the executants and recover the moneys thereunder. 3. The counsel of the executants of the bonds (now their legal representatives) argues that the expression "any such transfer" in sub-section 2 relates to a transfer with the previous sanction in writing of the Registrar. In other words, he contends that a transfer without the sanction of the Registrar is wholly void; and a transfer with the sanction is voidable, if it defeats or delays the rights of non-prized or unpaid prized subscribers. I do not agree. What appears fairly clear to me is that sub-section 2 deals with the consequences of transfers without sanction, while sub-section 1 generally prohibits such transfers. 4. The counsel then points out that there were no appeals by the appellant against the executants of the documents before the lower appellate court, the appeals there being only by the stake-holder. Normally, that is a good ground. But, 0.41 R.33 of the Code of Civil Procedure invests the appellate court with wide powers; and the appellate court may pass such orders as the case may require in certain cases. Such powers can be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection. In these cases, I think I have to exercise those powers. 5. The second appeals are consequently allowed; and decrees are passed against the legal representatives of the first defendant in O. S. No. 742 of 1956 and the legal representatives of defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 744 of 1956 for the suit amounts. In the unfortunate circumstances, I direct all parties to bear their respective costs throughout. 6. Leave to appeal is granted in both cases. Leave to appeal granted. Allowed.