JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— The respondents got a decree for money in execution of which they caused certain immoveable property to be attached. A part of that property has been purchased by the appellants pending the attachment. When the respondents applied for sale of the property in execution of the decree, the appellants objected to the sale upon various grounds. The court below over-ruled their objections, Hence the appeal. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents to the effect that no appeal lies, the appellants not being judgment-debtors or their representatives. The learned vakil for the appellants states that they do not now deny that they purchased the property when an attachment subsisted on it. 3. Consequently, according to the ruling in Lalji Mal v. Nand Kishore, I.L.R., 19 All, 332., the appellants are the representatives of the judgment-debtors within the meaning of section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They are therefore entitled to maintain this appeal, the order of the court below being a decree within the definition given in the Code. We, therefore, over-rule the objection. 4. It is contended on the merits that in consequence of a previous litigation, between these parties, the matter has become res judicata, and it is no longer open to the respondents to dispute the title of the appellants as purchasers from the judgment-debtors. The previous litigation was this, The appellants, after their purchase from the judgment-debtors, applied to the Revenue Court, for partition, under the Land Revenue Act. The respondents, who are also co-sharers of the judgment-debtors, opposed the application on the ground that the appellant's vendors had no title, having lost it in consequence of adverse possession and that the appellants were not co-sharers, who could claim partition. Upon this question of title being raised, the Court of Revenue referred the parties to the civil court, and accordingly a suit was brought by the respondents in the civil court for a declaration that the appellants had acquired no title under their purchase. That suit was for some reason, into which we need not enter, dismissed. It is urged that in that suit the present respondents ought to have raised the plea that the sale to the appellants was not a valid sale, because the property sold had been attached before the sale. That suit was for some reason, into which we need not enter, dismissed. It is urged that in that suit the present respondents ought to have raised the plea that the sale to the appellants was not a valid sale, because the property sold had been attached before the sale. In our judgment that objection could not validly have been raised in the suit brought by respondents. If the sale to the appellants was made, as it is now admitted that it was made whilst the property was under attachment, the sale was not absolutely void, but was only voidable under section 276 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the attaching creditor. The former suit was not a suit which had been brought by an attaching creditor as such. As we have already said, the sale could only be avoided by the attaching creditor if he wished to proceed against the property of his-co-sharer. The attaching creditor could not on that ground successfully resist the application for partition by the purchaser. Therefore the defence that the sale was voidable as against the respondents was not a defence which might and ought to have been made in the suit which they brought for a declaration of their right as co-sharers. The court below was, we think, right and this appeal must fail. We accordingly dismiss it with costs.