Sarjoo Prosad, J.

1. In the suit to which this appeal relates, there are various sets of defendants, the appellant being the defendant fifth party. The suit was for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of a certain area of land comprised in Khatas 46 and 55. These Khatas belonged to the head of certain family, and later came to be inherited by three different branches of the family including the branch or one Hiraman, defendant No. 1. On the pleadings, it is not disputed that the disputed lands formed a separate unit of tenancy between Hiraman defendant No. 1 and the landlords. The plaintiffs in April 1932 purchased these lands from Hiraman It appears that the landlords instituted a suit for rent for the lands in question impleading the original tenants, and obtained a decree for rent. This was in February 1934, and in execution of the said decree the landlords got the lands sold and purchased themselves in November 1935. An application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code was filed by the plaintiffs who had purchased the disputed area, for setting aside the sale in favour of the landlord-decree-holders, and in that proceeding a compromise