JUDGMENT : Stanley, J.:— This is an appeal from a decree of the Additional District Judge of Meerut, reversing the decision of the Court of first instance. The circumstances under which the litigation arose are shortly as follow: Hardial Singh and Ranjit Singh, in 1892, mortgaged 4 out of 6 sihams of property, 5 sihams belonging to Hardial and 3 to Ranjit Singh, in favour of the defendants-appellants. The defendants brought a suit for sale, on foot of their mortgage and obtained a decree, under section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act, on the 28th of January, 1895, and on the 4th of July, 1896, an order absolute for sale was passed, As the property was ancestral property the decree was transferred for execution to the Collector, but before a sale was carried out, the two sons of Hardial and the only son of Ranjit instituted a suit, for a declaration that they were entitled to the property with the exception of 1¼ sihams. They applied under section 492 of the Code for an injunction to restrain the plaintiffs in the mortgage suit from selling the property pending the determination of their suit and this application was granted and an order was passed on the 13th of February, 1897. By that order the Collector was directed not to sell more than 1¼ sihams. He, however, through some mistake, put up 1½ sihams for sale and this portion of the property was sold and purchased by the defendants-appellants, and out of the proceeds of the sale the decree was partly satisfied. The sale was duly confirmed and possession of the property given to the purchaser. In the suit which was instituted by the sons of the mortgagors it was held on appeal to the High Court on the 9th of May, 1899, that as to 1 siham the claim of Durga, who was the son of Hardial, ought to prevail and as regards that 1 siham the claim of Durga was admitted A decree was passed accordingly, the plaintiffs suit being dismissed as to the remaining 3 sihams. Thus it appears that the mortgagees lost the benefit of the decree as regards 1 siham out of the 4 sihams which were mortgaged to them, by the mortgagors. 2. Thus it appears that the mortgagees lost the benefit of the decree as regards 1 siham out of the 4 sihams which were mortgaged to them, by the mortgagors. 2. The present suit was then brought by the mortgagors and in it they claimed to be entitled to a quarter siham, being the excess over 1¼ sihams which the Collector had sold to the defendants-appellants, the contention being that inasmuch as by the injunction order the Collector was directed to sell only 1¼ sihams, he had no authority to sell 1½ sihams, and that the sale, therefore, of the quarter in dispute was invalid. This seems another startling proposition. Under the order absolute the mortgagees were entitled to sell 3 sihams, up to present they have only sold 1½ sihams. If the Court acceded to the contention which has found favour with the lower appellate Court and were to declare that the sale of the ¼ siham in dispute was invalid, the result would be that the mortgagors who have got the benefit of the purchase money of that portion of the security would hold the purchase money and also get possession of that portion of the property, This is obviously inequitable. 3. It appears to us, that if there was any irregularity in the sale of the ¼ siham in question, the course which was open to the mortgagors was to apply to have the sale set aside. After, however, the period which has elapsed and having regard to the fact that the sale was duly confirmed and that no step was taken to have it set aside, it is not open, in our judgment, to the mortgagors to institute the present suit. The learned Additional District Judge appears to us to have been mistaken in considering the sale carried out by the Collector a void ab initio, It was not void ab initio. There had been a valid order absolute for sale of 3 sihams. That order was in full force at the time when the sale was carried out. True, it is that the Court had directed him, pending the hearing of the second suit, not to dispose of more than 1¼ sihams, but this order in our judgment did not render the sale carried out under the decree for sale a nullity. That order was in full force at the time when the sale was carried out. True, it is that the Court had directed him, pending the hearing of the second suit, not to dispose of more than 1¼ sihams, but this order in our judgment did not render the sale carried out under the decree for sale a nullity. There are other answers which might readily be given to the case which has been raised by the plaintiffs-respondents but we do not think it necessary to consider these. The appeal must be allowed, the decree of the lower appellate Court set aside and the decree of the Court of first instance restored with costs in this Court on the higher scale and also the costs in the lower appellate Court.