Shah, J - (1.)The plaintiffs in this case mortgaged the house in suit to defendant No. 1 in 1910 with possession. They continued in possession under a rent-note passed at the same time to the mortgagee. In 1914 the defendant No. 1 sued the plaintiffs to recover possession of the house and the rent due on the rent-note, and obtained a decree against them. In execution he obtained possession of the house and attached the equity of redemption in the house and one land owned by the mortgagors.
(2.)This land was mortgaged to one Bai Nandkore who assigned her rights to defendant 3. Defendant No. 2 purchased the house and the land in January 1916: and both the sales were confirmed in March 1916. The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs in January 1917 to set aside the decree and the sales held in execution thereof. For the purpose of this second appeal it is needless to state the allegations upon which he sought to set aside the decree and both the sales. It is enough to state that the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit. In appeal the decree of the trial Court was confirmed: but for the first time the point relating to Order XXXIV, Rule 14 was considered with reference to the sale of the house.
(3.)In the appeal to this Court the relief claimed is limited in argument to the setting aside of both the sales: audit maybe mentioned at once that there is no error of law shown with regard to the conclusion reached by both the lower Courts as to the sale of the land. It is clear that the appeal so far as it relates to the sale of the land must fail. It was mortgaged j to a third person and it was quite open to the defendant No. I as decree-holder to bring the equity of redemption in the land belonging to his judgment-debtors to sale.