The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that no person can be bound by an order in a legal proceeding to which they were not a party or properly represented.

Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.

1. The petition which gave rise to the order under appeal was filed by the first respondent, who was a purchaser amongst others of the property in dispute in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by himself in O.S. No. 81 of 1931 on the file of the Court below. In 1922, some three years after the mortgage, the equity of redemption in an extent of 6.16 acres out of the mortgaged property was purchased by one Venkataramiah in Court-auction in execution of a money decree obtained against the mortgagors. The purchaser also obtained possession through Court on 3rd December, 1922. In 1930, Venkataramaiah was adjudicated an insolvent and his estate vested in the Official Receiver. At the time When the mortgage suit, O.S. No. 81 of 1931, was instituted, which was on 22nd October, 1931, the insolvency was still pending and the plaintiff, therefore, impleaded the Official Receiver as a defendant. He also impleaded Venkataramaiahs son, but Venkataramaiah himself was not made a party. On 17th February, 1933, the adjudication was annulled and the insolvents properties were revested in the insolvent by order of Court. The suit, however, proceeded without Venkataramaiah being added as a party, and a preliminary decree was passed on 25th Sep., 1933 followed by a final decree on 24th November, 1934. E.P. No. 9 of 1936 was then filed by the decree-holder for the execution of the decree by sale of the mortgaged property. On 25th September, 1936, while that execution petition was pending, he put in E.A. No. 339 of 1936 for the joinder of Venkataramaiah in the execution proceedings, but the application was, rightly in our opinion, dismissed on 7th April, 1937. This was obviously an attempt to cure the defect due to the omission to bring Venkataramaiah on the record in the suit. As it was unsuccessful, the decree holder made another attempt to get rid of the objection of Venkataramaiah that, not being a party to the suit, the decree did not bind him. E.A. No. 293 of 1938 was accordingly filed for the removal of the obstruction caused by Venkataramaiah to the receiver appointed in the suit, taking possession of 3.14 1/2 acres out of the property originally purchased by the latter. On this occasion also the decree-holder failed. By its order on this application, the Court directed the receiver to refrain from interfering with the possession of the obstructor. It will be seen that the obstruction related only to 3.14 1/2 acres, whereas Venkataramaiah had purchased 6.16 acres. The difference represents the share of Venkataramaiahs son decreed to him in a suit for partition instituted by him. The sons share was bound by the mortgage decree as he had been made a party to the suit, and on his death his mother had been substituted as his legal representative.

2. The mortgaged property was finally brought to sale, and the first respondent, the decree-holder, became the purchaser in court-auction. He then filed E.A. No. 440 of 1940 on. the strength of his purchase, asking for delivery of possession of the property purchased, inclusive of the portion, namely, 3.14, acres 1/2 in Venkataramaiahs possession. By this time Venkataramaiah had sold the property to the appellants under a sale deed dated 15th March, 1940, and the real object of the application was to remove the obstruction caused by the latter. The appellants, who were made respondents along with the judgment-debtors, opposed the application on the ground that neither the decree nor the sale held in pursuance of it bound the interests of Venkataramaiah, as he had not been brought upon the record after, and in spite of, the annulment of his adjudication long prior to decree and the re-vesting of the property in him. If Venkataramaiah was not bound, the appellants who had purchased the property from him could not be bound by the proceedings which had been taken behind his back. But the learned Subordinate Judge has held that Venkataramaiah was sufficiently represented b