1. In the suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal the defendant second party had purchased the disputed properties in an auction sale in Execution Case No. 165 o£ 1942. The execution was with respect to a money decree obtained by defendant No. 13 in Money Suit No. 52 of 1940 against the defendant first party for a refund of the consideration of a sale-deed. Defendant No. 13 obtained a decree in that suit and assigned the decree to defendant second party, who instituted the execution case.

In the course of execution, the properties were sold and purchased by the defendant second party. On 18th March, 1944, the plaintiff purchased the disputed properties from the defendant second party. It appears that on 22nd March, 1944, defendant No. 2 made an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the sale. The application was allowed ex parte on 16th June,. 1944, and the sale was set aside.

The plaintiff was not made a party in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 164 of 1944. He has instituted the present suit on the allegation that the order of setting aside the execution sale was not binding upon him and that he had title to the disputed pro