JUDGMENT

1. The only question in this appeal is, whether the plaintiff-respondent, who is the purchaser of the property in dispute under a prior mortgage-decree, to which the defendants-appellants were no parties, has a right to eject the defendants, the purchasers in execution of a decree, based on a puisne mortgage, to which the prior mortgagees were no parties. It appears that in the year 1910 the second mortgagees obtained a decree on foot of their mortgage for sale of the property and purchased the property on the 20th of April 1912, in execution of such decree. To this suit the prior mortgagee was not made a party. In the year 1916 the prior mortgagee got a decree for sale on foot of her mortgage, but to this suit neither the puisne mortgagee nor the purchaser in execution of his decree were, made parties. The prior mortgagee got a decree and put the property to sale and, in execution there of, purchased it herself. She has obtained possession over three-fourths of the property and has not got possession over one-fourth, which is in the possession of the defendants.

2. She brought the present suit for recovery of possession of the remaining one-fourth also, and, in the alternat