Ramratna Singh, J.

1. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent. Ist party for a declaration that a decree in small cause court suit No. 228 of 1938, obtained by defendant No. 1, Ramswarath Thakur (defendant No. 2, who is Chandradeo Sah, mentioned as a decree-holder in paragraph 7 of the plaint seems to be a mistake) and the auction sale in execution case no. 1774 of 1938 in execution of the decree and the consequent delivery of possession of the properties described in the schedules appended to the plaint are illegal and void and they may be set aside. There is also a prayer for a declaration that certain zarpeshgi bonds in favour of Lalji Sah, the defendant 2nd party, and Lauhar Singh, the defendant 4th party, are illegal and without legal necessities. The last prayer is for recovery of possession of the property described in schedule 2 to the plaint. The plaintiff, who calls himself as Satnarain Bhagat, son of Gopal Bhagat, instituted the suit on the 26th May 1952 as a minor through his next friend Sukhat Bhagat, his fathers sisters husband. But during the pendency of the suit he filed a petition that he attained majority on th