1. I do not see any reason to interfere with the decree of the lower appellate Court. Two sets of properties were purchased by the plaintiff in Court auction in execution of a money decree which was obtained by defendant 2s father against one Nagi Reddi. Under the column "details of encumbrances to which the property is liable," a registered mortgage deed was mentioned as having been executed on 22nd June 1930, and it was said that the mortgage was a fraudulent transaction not supported by consideration and therefore not binding. It so turned out that on the date of the Court sale the mortgagee had already filed the suit O.S. No. 108 of 1934. The Court sale at which the plaintiff became the purchaser was on 7th May 1934, which was subsequent to the institution of O.S. No. 108 of 1934. The plaintiffs purchase was therefore lis pendens and subject to the result of the mortgage suit and of the further proceedings taken therein. It was the duty of the auction-purchaser to have impleaded himself in that suit and to have sought redemption if he so wanted. He did not do it. The result was that a decree was passed, the properties were brought to sale and they were purchased by the