Phillips, J.

1. The main question for consideration in this appeal is whether the sale in execution of the property of the deceased judgment-debtor is a mere irregularity or a nullity. It appears that in this case an order for the sale of the judgment-debtors property was made and that before the sale took place, the judgment-debtor died. His legal representative were not impleaded. There are two cases of this Court which are exactly applicable, one reported in Raghunathaswami Iyengar v. Gopaul Rao 68 Ind. Cas. 667 : 41 M.L.J. 547 : (1921) M.W.N. 732 : 15 L.W. 12 : (1922) A.I.R. (M.) 307 and the other in Doraisami v. Chidambaram Pillai 75 Ind. Cas. 46 : 47 M 63 : 45 M.L.J. 413 : 18 L.W. 577 : 33 M.L.T. 25 : (1923) M.W.N. 817 : (1924) A. I.A. (M.) 130. The decisions being directly opposed to, one another, it is suggested for the appellant that in view of this difference of opinion this second appeal should be referred to a Bench but, as I will explain, I do not think that is necessary.

2. In Raghunathaswami Iyengar v. Gopaul Rao 68 Ind. Cas. 667 : 41 M.L.J. 547 : (1921) M.W.N. 732 : 15 L.W. 12 : (1922) A.I.R. (M.) 307 Oldfield and Ramesam, JJ., held that the sale in execution