JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. The facts which gave rise to this case are these:— In 1887, one Ram Sahai mortgaged the property in suit along-with other property to one Ram Dayal. In 1894 Ram Dayal brought a suit for sale under his mortgage and obtained a decree on the 15th February, 1894. It is admitted before me to-day that an order absolute for sale under section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act was obtained on the 13th February, 1895. In execution of a decree, which was admittedly a simple money decree, the same property was sold on the 20th September, 1895, and was purchased by the plaintiff Indarjit and his four brothers. It is thus clear that on the date on which the plaintiff and his brothers purchased the property, the right of the mortgagor to redeem had, in consequence of the order absolute under section 89, been extinguished. All that the plaintiff and his brothers were entitled to do after they had stepped into the shoes of the mortgagor, subsequently to the passing of that order, was to save the property and avert a sale of it by paying of the amount of the decree. This the plaintiff or his brothers did not do, and accordingly, upon the application of the widow of Ram Dayal, who had in the meantime died, the property was put up for sale in execution of the decree obtained by Ram Dayal and was sold on the 20th August, 1898. 2. At that sale the defendant purchased half of the share which had been previously purchased in 1895 by the plaintiff Indarjit and his brothers. 3. It appears that by an oversight the name of Indarjit was omitted in the application for execution made by Ram Dayal's widow, and this circumstance has afforded to Indarjit an opportunity for bringing this suit. He now claims to recover from the defendant, who has obtained possession under his auction purchase, a fifth share of the property sold on the 20th August, 1898. 4. The court of first instance decreed the claim, but the appellate court has dismissed it. In my judgment the lower appellate court was right. As I have already said, the plaintiff Indarjit stepped into the shoes of the mortgagor. The equity of redemption of the mortgagor had been extinguished by the order absolute for sale before the purchase by the plaintiff. In my judgment the lower appellate court was right. As I have already said, the plaintiff Indarjit stepped into the shoes of the mortgagor. The equity of redemption of the mortgagor had been extinguished by the order absolute for sale before the purchase by the plaintiff. Therefore the mere fact that the plaintiff was not made a party to the execution proceedings, did not confer on the plaintiff any right to the property, which was liable to sale under the mortgage decree, and which has actually been sold in execution of that decree. He might, if he had so chosen, have averted the sale by depositing in Court the amount for the recovery of which the sale was to take place, but he did not do so. He has no right to get back from the purchaser under the mortgage decree any part of the mortgaged property sold in execution of that decree. His title not being superior to that of the purchaser, his suit has, in my opinion, been rightly dismissed, and I dismiss the appeal with costs.