Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The question in this appeal is whether an order passed dismissing an objection preferred to an attachment under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no suit having been filed under Rule 63, operates beyond proceedings in execution of the particular decree.

2. On the 13th September, 1919, Perianna Padayachi (the father of defendants 1 to 3), the fourth defendant and one Sengeni Padayachi executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. Some of the mortgaged properties belonged to Perianna Padayachi, some to the fourth defendant and some to Sengeni Padayachi. On the 7th July, 1939, the mortgagee sued to recover the amount then due on the mortgage. With interest it came to Rs. 1,998. The properties owned by Sengeni Padayachi were sold in public auction by the revenue authorities for the recovery of land revenue and were purchased by the mortgagee, subject to his mortgage. Credit for the amount paid by the mortgagee for these properties was given to the mortgagors.

3. In original suit No. 183 of 1932 of the Court of the District Munsiff of Cuddalore the mortgagee obtained a decree on a mortgage of other property executed by the fourth