1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 590 of 1903 obtained a decree on his hypothecation deed for the sale of the properties mortgaged against the mortgagor and the appellants predecessor-in-title who was a puisne mortgagee. The puisne mortgagee purchased the mortgagors interest in a Judicial sale in execution of a decree obtained by him to which the plaintiff was a party. The mortgagee-judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 590 of 1903 died and without bringing his representatives on record the plaintiff got the properties sold in execution of his decree. The appellant now applies in effect to be made a party and to set aside the sale on payment to the plaintiff of the amount due to him under the decree. He also alleged fraud. The Lower Courts hold that the application is barred by limitation. If the sale is a nullity so far as he is concerned, then the application is clearly not barred. According to the decisions of this Court, Ramasami v. Bagirathi (1883) I.L.R. 6 M. 180 Krishnayya v. Unnissa Begam (1891) I.L.R. 15 M. 399 and Groves v. Administrator-General (1891) I.L.R. 22 Mad. 119 the omission to bring the representatives on record is not a mere irregularity. It renders the sale a nullity