This is an appeal by the second defendant, the son of the first defendant, against the decree of the lower Court directing the sale of his one-eighth share. Mr.S.Tyagaraja Ayyar for the appellant contends that since the second defendant was not made a party to Execution Petition No.308 of 1937, the sale of his share is null and void. We find that it was after the filing of Execution Petition No.308 of 1937 that the decree in Original Suit No.55 of 1936 was passed on 10th July, 1937, by which the order on the claim petition was set aside and the attachment of the second defendant’s share was restored. As the first defendant was the kartha of the family, he must be deemed to have represented the second defendant also in Execution Petition No.308 of 1937. It cannot be said that even though the second defendant was not eo nomine a party to this execution petition, he was not represented in the petition, because his father, the manager of the joint family, was on record.

The other argument of the learned counsel is that the decree in Original Suit No.55 of 1936 cannot be held to have restored what was disallowed on the claim petition ; because it is only a party against w