- (1.)This second appeal arises from a suit for joint possession of 3/4th share of the appellants in the lands sold in execution of a decree against their father. The suit was resisted by the purchaser and the decree- holders. The trial Court dismissed the suit not only on the merits but also holding that the suit was not competent, being barred by section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, although it held that the suit was not barred by section 47, Civil Procedure Code.
(2.)Shyamlal and Ramanuj, in execution of their decree against Shankar- dutt, father of the appellants, got attached and sold the suit lands. They were purchased by Sanatkumar (respondent No. 1). After the decree was passed against him, Shankardutt died and the execution proceeded against his sons, the appellants. When the sale took place, the appellants were party to the execution proceedings.
(3.)After the sale, this suit was brought by the appellants. The main contention in the suit was that Shankardatta was addicted to gambling and the debts for which the lands were sold were Awyawaharik, that is, immoral. The trial Court found the issue not proved. The first appellate Court affirmed that finding against the plaintiffs.