Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The 4th defendant, one of the judgment debtors, is the appellant before us. He was the petitioner in the lower court. The respondent in this appeal is the 7th defendant, another of the judgment-debtors. The respondent (7th defendant) has been styled in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge by mistake as the 5th defendant and 5th respondent. The decree had been passed so long ago as in 1896 against the 1st defendant who was then the hukdar of the mosque and his five sons. The first defendant as such hukdar was entitled to the surplus profits of certain lands after meeting the expenses in connection with the upkeep of the mosque charities. The decree directed the realisation of the decree amount from such surplus income. Three sons, namely, defendants 2, 3 and 4 were afterwards, in actual possession of the lands as lessees from their father, the 1st defendant, under a registered lease deed dated 26th October 1900. The other two sons, (the defendants 5 and 6) had died unmarried and issueless before the date of this lease of 1900. While the defendants 2, 3 and 4 were in possession as lessees, a Receiver was appointed by the Court in order that the decree-ho