A composite auction sale, comprising undivided though distinct interests of multiple judgment-debtors, cannot be set aside partially under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure. Such a sale must be set aside in its entirety, if at all.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. These five applications, in revision, by Skh. Kafiluddin, a judgment-debtor, who is now dead, arise out of an equal number of application made under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure, not by him but by Nurul Haq, one of the other two judgment-debtors, who is opposite party 4 in this Court, in each of the five execution cases, for setting aside the sales of different properties in each case.

2. What happened was this : One Jinat Ali had two sons, Nasiruddin, husband of Mt. Pano, opposite party 5, and Kafiluddin, the original petitioner before this Court, on whose death, his heirs have been substituted as petitioners. Nasiruddin had two sons, Abclul Haq, opposite parly 3, and Nurul Haq, opposite party 4. Abdul Haq had a son Sayeed Akhtar, who is the decree holder-opposite pary 2. Sayeed Akhtar obtained five decrees against his father, Abdul Haq, his uncle, Nurut Haq, the applicant for setting aside the sales, and grand-uncle, Kafiluddin, the original petitioner, for arrears of rent in respect of five different holdings, Those decrees were executed separately and different properties were put to sale for realisation of the decretal amounts.

3. Civil Revision No. 253 of 1958 arises out of Execution Case No. 6 of 1953, in which 8.19 acres of land was sold for Rs. 60.00 on the 5th February, 1954; Civil Revision No. 254 of 1958 arises out of Execution Case No. 8 of 1953, in which 2.61 acres of land was sold for Rs. 80.00 on the 5th February, 1954; Civil Revision No. 2.55 of 1958 arises out of Execution Case No. 7 of 1953, in which. 56 bighas were sold for Rs. 90.00 on the 7th December, 1953; Civil Revision No. 256 of 1958 arises out of Execution Case No. 435 of 1933, in which 1.48 acres were sold for Rs. 65/- on the 12th June, 1954; and Civil Revision No. 2-37 of 1958 arises out of Execution Case No. 436 of 1953, in which 3 bighas and odd were sold for Rs. 137 on the 12th June, 1954.

4. In all the above five auction sales, the auction purchaser was one Mojibur Rahman, opposite party 1, the admitted brother-in-law of Abdul Haq, one of the judgment-debtors and the father of Sayeed Akhtar, the decree-holder, in other words, his own Mamu (maternal uncle).

5. All the above auction-sold lands were joint between the three judgment-debtors, namely Ab- dul Haq, Mural Haq and Kafiluddin, and in each of the land sold Nurul Haq had an undivided four annas share and the other two had the remaining undivided twelve annas share.

6. Only Nurul Haq, one of the three judgment-debtors, made an application on the 27th November, 1954, for setting aside the entire sale, in each of these five cases, separately. He pleaded that he got knowledge of the sales on the 6th November, 1954, and, therefore, he could not make an application within the statutory period of limitation earlier. The executing Court allowed these applications of Nurul Haq on the 31st August, 1955, and set aside the sale in each of these five cases. The auction-purchaser, Mojibur Rahman, thereafter, took an appeal to the Court of appeal below, against the said order of the executing Court setting aside the sales.

7. During the pendency of the appeals in the Court of Appeal below, there was a compromise between the auction-purchaser, Mojibur Rahman, and Nurul Haq, the judgment-debtor-sole applicant, on the 27th January, 1956. This compromise was recorded by the learned Additional District Judge on the same day, i.e., 27th January, 1956. The order, so far as is material, is to the following effect:-

"x x x x x

Let the compromise be recorded and four annas share of Nurul Haq in the auction sold property be released in terms thereof. The appeals are allowed ex parte against the rest, but without costs. With the modification of Nurul Haques share, the sale is upheld and the lower Courts judgment is set aside."

8. Against the above order recording the compromise and setting aside the sale in part, only in respect of the four annas share of Nurul Haq, th