Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The facts found are that he was the paid agent of the plaintiff Ramaswami Chetti in the year 1911, that the plaintiff obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor to whom the plaint house belonged, and that in execution of that decree the plaint house was sold and purchased by the 1st defendant with his masters money in his hands and for the benefit of his master (the plaintiff) though without the knowledge of his master. The sale certificate was issued to the 1st defendant and he got delivery for his master in 1912. The plaintiff afterwards dismissed the 1st defendant from his service. Till such dismissal the 1st defendants intention was to hold possession of the house for his master and the master adopted and ratified the purchase. On his dismissal he refused to vacate for the first time and then this suit was brought to eject him. The legal defence set up by the 1st defendant (appellant before us) is that Section 66 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is a bar to the suit. That section no doubt is very widely worded. It says: ".No suit shall be maintained against any person claiming title under a purchase certified