JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal brought by the defendants Nos. 7 and 8 against a declaratory decree passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hardoi. The facts of the case are:On the 19th December, 1890, a possessory mortgage was executed by one Habibullah Khan in favour of Mahadeo Prasad, husband of the plaintiff-respondent, in respect of 15 biswas of village Darayapur Bakku situate in the district of Hardoi. Three simple deeds of mortgage were subsequently executed by the same person in favour of Mahadeo Prasad. Those deeds have been called deeds of further charge but they are really deeds of simple mortgages for various amounts at different rates of interest hypothecating the same share as mortgaged under the deed of 1890. The dates of those three deeds are 19th December, 1890, 12th March, 1891 and 30th July, 1892. On the 4th March, 1909, Mt. Gulqandi, respondent, widow of Mahadeo Prasad, the original mortgagee, brought a suit for sale on the basis of all the four deeds mentioned above against the heirs of the mortgagor, Habibullah Khan, who had died in the meanwhile. On the 19th April, 1910, the suit was decided by the Court of the Additional Judge of Hardoi, giving the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 66,178-13-5 in respect of the three simple mortgages, declaring that no decree could be passed with respect to the possessory mortgage dated the 19th December, 1890, (Ex. 3). The Court further declared that the property shall be sold subject to that possessory mortgage. On the 10th May, 1913, the respondent got her decree made absolute and on the 16th February, 1916, put in an application for execution of the decree by sale of the property. Between the date of the preliminary decree and the final decree one Thakur Shankar Bakhsh brought a suit for money due against the heirs of the original mortgagor and obtained a decree from the Court of the Additional Judge of Hardoi on the 1st May, 1912, (Ex. 10). After the application for execution had been filed by the respondent, sale took place in execution of the decree of 1912 and a portion of the property was purchased by one Maulvi Subhanullah, who is impleaded in the suit under appeal as the defendant No. 1. The date of the sale at which he purchased is the 20th May, 1916, and the sale was confirmed on the 1st July, 1916. The sale as stated above was only with respect to 7/16ths of 15 biswas. The purchaser got mutation of names effected in his favour with respect to a 7/16ths share but did not get actual possession as the respondent was validly in possession of the entire 15 biswas under the possessory mortgage dated the 19th December, 1890. The respondent prosecuted her application for execution and ultimately brought the property to sale on the 20th June, 1918. She herself purchased the property and a sale certificate with respect to the entire share of 15 biswas was issued to her on the 27th August, 1918, (Ex. 9). She then went to the Revenue Court and asked for mutation of names to be made in her favour as proprietor in respect of the 15 biswas share purchased by her. The application was opposed by Maulvi Subhanullah with respect to 7/16ths share purchased by him and it was rejected. She now brings the present suit that her title with regard to the 7/16th share out of 15 biswas share purchased by her on the 20th June, 1918, be declared. She contends that the sale in favour of Maulvi Subhanullah in 1916 was inoperative and ineffectual and not binding on her.

2. In her suit the respondent impleaded Maulvi Subhanullah, the heirs of the original mortgagor Habibullah Khan, and also persons to whom title had passed from Maulvi Subhanullah. One Syed Mahmudul Haq, a pleader of Hardoi, purchased the property from Maulvi Subhanullah and he in his own turn transferred it to Qudratullah Khan and Inayatullah Khan, sons of Habibullah Khan, the original mortgagor, now defendants Nos. 7 and 8. As Maulvi Subhanullah and Syed Mahmudul Haq were left with no interest in the property in suit their