Somayya, J.

1. The question in this case is whether the appellants suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties is barred under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The appellant is the purchaser of the rights of defendants 1, 3, 4 and 7 who are respondents 1, 3, 4 and 7. The four vendors of the plaintiff along with some others were the heirs-at-law of one Marakkarkutti, who died before 1910 leaving considerable properties. In 1910 all except one daughter of his entered into a partition evidenced by Ex. II. The daughter who was then left out filed O.S. No. 10 of 1915 for a partition and a final decree Ex. G-was passed in that suit. Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 7 in this suit who are the vendors of the plaintiff were also defendants in the partition action. These defendants had to pay some sums to the plaintiff in the partition action under the final decree. Partly for raising the money payable by them under the partition decree to the plaintiff in that suit and partly for some other purposes, the sale deed Ex. A was executed on the 14th December, 1923, in favour of the present appellant. He filed the suit after purchase. His ease is that after the purchase, he le