Arnold White, C.J.

1. The question which we have to decide in this appeal is whether it is open to the appellant to impeach the validity of the mortgage on which the suit is brought. The question arises in this way. The suit is by the mortgagee. The first defendant is the mortgagor. Defendants Nos. 23 and 24 held a money decree against the mortgagor and they attached the mortgaged property. The mortgagee put in a claim under Section 278 of the Civil Procedure Code. The mortgagor was not a party to these proceedings. On the hearing of that claim the mortgage was attached by defendants Nos. 23 and 24 on two grounds. It was attacked on the ground that it was invalid because the provisions of Section 257-A of the Code had not been complied with and on the ground that it was a sham. Notwithstanding that the mortgage was impeached on the grounds I have stated, the claim of the mortgagee was upheld. Defendants Nos. 23 find 24 became the purchasers at the Court sale held under the order made in the proceedings under Section 278; they afterwards assigned their rights to the twenty-fifth defendant who is the appellant before us. Now the present suit is a suit by the mortgagee and he s