Two points are taken in the C.M.S.A., viz., that the lower Court should have held that the plea of the respondents was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata and secondly, that in any event the appellant before me should be refunded the proportionate share of the purchase money (i.e., three-fourths).

In my opinion, both the points taken are bound to fail. Turning to the first point, what is the constructive res judicata pleaded? The argument runs that since the petitioners in the lower Court did not object at the settlement of the proclamation of sale to the sale of this property as property liable to be sold in execution of the decree against the late Viswanatha Ayyar or advance the claim that no sale could be validly held as far as their shares or interests (viz., three-fourths) were concerned, they are barred from agitating the matter any further under the rule of constructive res judicata. In advancing this argument, it was overlooked that the petitioners in the lower Court had not any notice by reason of any of the processual formalities laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure that this particular item of property constituting the subject-matter of the