JUDGMENT

1. The admitted facts in this case are as follows: The plaintiff Kanhaiya Lal, who is the appellant in this Court, sued a certain firm, on foot of two promissory notes, for money. The firm was styled Bhairon Prasad Mahadeo Prasad. Mangli Prasad was mentioned as the party on whom the summons in the suit was to be served. The case was compromised and Mangli Prasad agreed with Kanhaiya Lal to pay the decretal amount by instalments. He also earmarked a certain property, as belonging to the firm, for the purposes of raising the money. Mangli Prasad had, at the date of contracting the debt, and at the date of the decree, two brothers, namely Suraj Karan and Phulchand, both of whom were minors at the time. Kanhaiya Lal, having got his decree, brought the property mentioned in the decree to sale. Thereupon, the brothers of Mangli Prasad came to the Court with an objection, which in our opinion was one under Order 21 Rule 58, Civil P.C. They said they had nothing to do with the simple money decree that had been passed against their brother, and that their share in the property should be exempted. The Court found (see p. 20 of the printed record) that the objectors were not bound by