Spencer, J.

1. The appellant, who is the plaintiff in the suit, purchased certain lands in a court sale upon a mortgage decree. He alleged in the plaint that he obtained delivery of this property through Court but that he was dispossessed a month later by the defendant. He now sues to recover possession of the property from the mortgagor (defendant) and for an injunction against further interference by the latter.

2. The suit was dismissed in the first Court on the ground that the sale was invalid, and on appeal the District Judge confirmed the District Munsifs decree. It was also found that the plaintiff had not obtained possession of the lands in suit and that his allegation of trespass was untrue. In second appeal it is contended that the defendant is debarred by res judicata from questioning the correctness of the sale and also that he is debarred under S? 47, C.P.C., from raising a question relating to execution in this suit.

3. It appears that after the sale took place the defendant appealed under Order 21, Rule 89 to have the sale set aside on making a deposit as required by that rule, and that he was unsuccessful in that application. Afterwards he applied under Rule 90