This Appeal by sixth defendant in the suit is directed against the concurrent findings of the courts below. The courts below declared that a court sale, pursuant to Ext. A7 decree in O.S.147/68, was not binding on the respondent/ plaintiffs.

2. The chronology of events, leading to the Suit from which the Second Appeal arises, is as follows: The original owner of the Suit property, 4th defendant, sold it to 5th defendant by Ext. A2 dated 18-2-1958 and he, in turn sold it to 'Nair Sahodhara Sangham' by Ext. A1 dated 6-7-1960. Plaintiff N.S.S. Karayogam stepped into the shoes of the 'Nair Sahodhara Sangham' by reason of Exts. A3 and All. While so, one Sankaran Narayanan filed a Suit, OS 359/63 against the aforesaid Sangham, and that ended in a compromise (Ext. A5). Earlier, 4th defendant had executed Ext. B4 chitty bond in favour of first defendant. Based on that, first defendant filed OS 147/68 against the 4thdefendant. Ext. A6 the judgment in that Suit and Ext.A7 the decree: Plaintiffs were not parties to the Suit.

3. In execution of Ext. A7 decree, the suit property was sold in court auction. Defendants 2 & 3 purchased the same. Ext. A8 is the Delivery Kychit. Later, 3rd