Jackson, J.

1. This is a suit for recovery of possession of property described in two schedules A and B.

2. The appeal is only concerned with the B schedule property, identified as plots B-2 and B-3 by the District Munsif, an identification which the Subordinate Judge may be taken to accept.

3. On the findings of fact the plaintiff must fail as regards these two plots, unless he can show that defendants 5 and 9 and their legal representatives 3, 6 to 12 are estopped from defending the suit, because in the previous proceeding they put in a claim under Order 21, rule 58 and upon its rejection did not bring a suit within the prescribed year. Both Lower Courts have held that there can be no estoppel because the order rejecting the claim was passed after the property had been knocked down in Court-auction, and at that point for disposing of claims under Order 21, Rule 58 the Court was functus offlcio.

4. The order runs:

The properties attached are sold to-day. This petition is put in too late, and unnecessarily delayed. Hence rejected.

5. Abdul Kadir Sahib v. Somasundatram Chettiar I.L.R. (1922) 45 M. 827 : 43 M.L.J. 467 cited by the Subordinate Judge has no application because there