1. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass.

.2. The subject matter of the hypotheca belonged to Dhanam. She executed a mortgage in favour of Balu Chettiar, and borrowed certain amounts. Balu Chettiar assigned the mortgage in favour of one Kadappa Chettiar. The property was at that time, in the occupation of Sambandamurthi. In the meanwhile, the owner of the property Dhanam viz., the mortgagor filed as suit in O.S.No.-533 of 1975 for redemption of the mortgage, wherein a preliminary decree was passed on 111. 1976. She deposited a sum of Rs. 212.75 into Court pursuant to the preliminary decree. After passing of the preliminary decree, she sold the property in favour of one Ramaswamy, who is the 2nd respondent herein. But inspite of her having sold the property in favour of Ramaswamy, she pursued the matter by filing application in I.A.No. 99 of 1979 for passing of final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree obtained by her and a final decree was passed. At that time, Ramaswamy filed E.P.No. 430 of 1980 straight away. The right of Ramasamy, the subsequent purchaser to file the E.P. was questioned by stating that he was not a party to either the original suit or