- (1.)In this regular second appeal the only substantial question of law which arise for adjudication is: -
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Courts below were right in law in holding that the suit is not maintainable?"

(2.)On 22/04/1976, the plaintiffs had preferred a suit challenging the sale made by the Court in execution of a decree in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 17/01/1976. In an earlier civil suit No. 211 of 1971 one Shri Dola Ram had obtained a consent decree vide order dated 1-6-1973 against Pala, the father of plaintiffs which was later on executed and ultimately the possession of the disputed property was handed over to defendant Nos. 2 and 3. It is pertinent to note that the sale of the disputed property in those execution proceedings was effected on 17-1- 1976 before coming into force of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No.104 of 1976). The said amendment was made effective from 1-2-1977.
(3.)In the aforesaid suit, the plaintiffs had alleged that firstly their father was a marginal farmer and as such his land could not be attached or sold and the sale is not binding on them and secondly that the disputed property was ancestral in nature and on this ground too, the suit land could not be sold. Defendants had questioned the maintainability of the suit contending that they had purchased the suit land in execution proceedings and were handed over the possession, also. Both the Courts below non-suited the plaintiffs on the ground that the suit was not maintainable.