1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of an order in execution where the executing court held that the obstruction by the third party is not liable to be removed. The appellant obtained a mortgage decree, the mortgagor being the first defendant in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the equity of redemption had been sold by a private sale and the purchaser thereof came to be impleaded as the second defendant in the suit. After final decree in the mortgage suit, the hypotheca was brought for sale and after obtaining leave to bid and set off, the mortgagee-decree-holder purchased the same on 21st February 1973 in the court auction. This sale came to be confirmed on 31st August 1974.

2. Later, he filed execution application for delivery. Kandaswami, who is the respondent in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before me, claiming that he has purchased the property in an earlier court auction, caused obstruction. Hence, the appellant had to file E.A. No. 211 of 1973 on the file of the Court below for removal of obstruction.

3. The other Court auction under which Kandaswami claims was in pursuance of a simple money decree in O.S. No. 133 of 1967. There, the judgment-d