The acution purchaser, who filed an application under Order 21, rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, and who is aggrieved against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirupattur, who dismissed his application, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. Certain facts have to be noted before the relevant contentions are considered. The properties in question were subject to a mortgage originally and the mortgagor purported to sell a portion of the hypotheca even during the subsistence of the mortgage, to one Vaiboga Chettiar. Later on, the mortgagee instituted an action on the foot of the mortgage in O.S. No. 457 of 1939 and secured a mortgage decree therein. In the said mortgage decree Vaiboga Chettiar was made a party. It appears, however, from the record that he has been exonerated, but it is not clear as to why he was exonerated. This Court, however, had occasion to interpret the scope of such exoneration in A.A.O.No. 53 of 1957. Ganapatia Pillai, J., held that the exoneration of the second defendant in the mortgage action could only refer to his person and not to the properties which were the subject-matter of the hypotheca. Thereafter Vaiboga Chetti