JUDGMENT

1. This is a second appeal by two plaintiffs whose suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. It arises out of the following facts. The plaintiffs were judgment-debtors under a simple money-decree held by the defendants, in execution of which decree certain Immovable property belonging to the plaintiffs was attached. The property being ancestral, the execution of the decree was transferred to the Collector u/s 68, Civil Procedure Code. Its execution proceeded subject to the rules made by the Local Government, which are to be found in the United Provinces Gazette of 14th October 1911, Part I, page 1005. In the result, the property attached was sold at auction and purchased by the decree-holders on the 20th of March 1913. The sale was confirmed on the 25th of April 1913. On the 25th of June 1913 the judgment-debtors presented a petition to the Collector asking that the sale should be set aside. They alleged that the decree-holders had fraudulently kept them in ignorance of the pendency of the execution proceedings; also that the sale was liable to be set aside because the decree-holders had purchased without the leave of the Court, and finnlly they tendered the full am