JUDGMENT

1. The decision of this appeal admittedly turns on a point of law, and there is no contest as to the facts. Moreover, it hag been agreed before us that the dispute should be decided by us notwithstanding any defects in procedure.

2. The question is whether the title of a purchaser from one who has bought at a sale in execution of his own decree is liable to be defeated where the decree has been subsequently set aside.

3. It was decided in Sheik Ismal Rowther v. Rajab Rowther 30 M. 295 : 17 M.L.J. 165 : 2 M.L.T. 186 that where property sold in execution of a voidable decree is purchased by the decree-holder and by him sold for value to a third person, who has no notice of any defect in the decree, the equitable right to set aside such a decree cannot prevail against the rights of a subsequent purchaser for value without notice. If this decision be correct, then the present appeal must succeed.

4. But I find it difficult to reconcile this decision with what was said by the Privy Council in Zain-ul-Abdin Khan v. Muhammad Asghar Ali Khan 10 A. 166 (P.C.) : 15 I.A. 12 : 5 Sar. P.C.J. 129. There sales were attacked which were effected under decrees that where subsequently set aside.