Somayya, J.

1. Defendants 3 and 4 are the appellants The suit properties were originally owned by one Murugappa Chetti. The first defendant purchased them from third defendants guardian on the footing that the third defendant is Murugappas son and the fourth defendant is an alience from the first defendant. The plaintiff claims under a Court sale held in execution of a money decree obtained against the second defendant. His case is that the second defendant was the adopted son of Mrugappa Chetti, the original owner of the property and that the third defendant was not the son of Murugappa. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 danied the second defendants adoption.

2. The lower appellate Court found that the second defendants adoption by Murugappa is true and that the third defendant is the legitimate son of Murugappa. On this finding the plaintiff would be entitled to a half share and defendants 1, 3 and 4 to another half share.

3. But the validity of the Court auction at which the plaintiff became the purchaser is attacked on another ground which has been upheld by the lower appellate Court. It is necessary to state a few facts in order to understand that contention.

4. The second defendant