Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The question raised in this appeal is whether an application for restitution made by the appellants for recovery of a sum of money deposited by them into Court for setting aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure is sustainable. The plaintiff-respondent in this appeal filed a suit O.S. No. 440 of 1917 to recover a certain annuity from and out of the property in the Schedule annexed to the plaint filed by him. The properties were owned by the third defendant from whom the first defendant purchased; and he in turn sold them to the second defendant. A decree was passed in the suit in favour of the plaintiff directing among other things payment of the amount by sale of the properties Pending the suit the said properties appear to have been purchased by the appellants from the second defendant. In consequence of the said decree in the above suit the properties were brought to sale and purchased by the plaintiff-decree-holder. The appellant made an application to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code, by depositing the amount of the decree into Court and the sale was accordingly set aside. This was in o