JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. 1. The plaintiff-appellant held a money decree against Jiwan Ram and Ganga Sahai, and in execution thereof caused certain property to be attached as the property of the judgment-debtors. The defendant, Mangal Chand, preferred a claim under section 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of a sale deed executed in his favour by the judgment-debtors. His claim having been allowed and the property released from attachment, the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought by the decree-holder, under section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a declaration that the property belonged to his judgment-debtors, and was liable to be sold in execution of his decree. The suit was originally Drought against Mangal Chand only. It was brought within one year of the date of the order releasing the property from attachment and was certainly within time as against him. He raised the plea that the judgment-debtors were necessary parties to the suit, and thereupon, on the application of the plaintiff, the judgment-debtors, Jiwan Ram and Ganga Sahai, were added as defendants on the 25th of August, 1912, that is, after the expiry of one year from the date of the Court's order releasing the property. The court: of first instance held that, as the suit, against the judgment-debtors must be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which they were added as parties, and this was, after the expiry of the period of limitation, the whole suit was time-barred. This decision has been affirmed by the lower appellate court. The question whether the claim is time-barred, depends on whether in a suit like this brought by the decree-holder the judgment-debtor is a necessary party. In our opinion when the decree-holder brings a suit against a successful claimant to establish that the property belongs to his judgment-debtor and that he is entitled to bring it to sale in execution of his decree, the only person against whom he claims relief is the successful claimant. 2. To such a suit the judgment-debtor is not a necessary party. If an unsuccessful claimant brings a suit and he seeks to establish his claim against both the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor, the latter is of course a necessary party. As we have already said this is a suit brought by the decree-holder and not an unsuccessful claimant. 2. To such a suit the judgment-debtor is not a necessary party. If an unsuccessful claimant brings a suit and he seeks to establish his claim against both the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor, the latter is of course a necessary party. As we have already said this is a suit brought by the decree-holder and not an unsuccessful claimant. We have not been referred to any case in which it has been decided that in a suit like the present, the judgment-debtor is a necessary party. That being so, the claim is not time-barred, it having been brought against the real defendant; the successful claimant, within one year of the date of the order of the court executing the decree by which the property was released from attachment. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of the courts below and remand the case to the court of first instance, under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for trial of the other issues which arise in the case and which were not determined. The appellant will get the cost of this appeal, including fees on the higher scale. Other costs will follow the event.