JUDGMENT 1. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was brought for the purpose of partially setting aside a sale held in execution of a certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act. The Subordinate Judge has given the Plaintiff a decree. The added Defendants Nos. 7 and 8, who allege themselves to be the purchasers or, rather, the beneficial purchasers at the sale, appeal. 2. On their behalf it has been urged (1) that the suit is not maintainable as a sale cannot be partially set aside; (2) that the suit is barred by Art. 12 of the Limitation Act; (3) that the finding that the Defendants 2nd party are the real purchasers does not arise on the pleadings and is not justified by the evidence; (4) that as the Defendants 2nd party have been made co-Plaintiffs, the dispute resolves itself into one between the Plaintiff and his co-Plaintiffs; (5) that the certificate should have been presumed to have been issued by the certificate-officer; (6) that the Subordinate Judge is wrong in finding that Kali Dutt Jha, one of the judgment-debtors, died before the issue of the certificate; (7) that the certificate should have been held to have been duly served and (8) that, in any case, the purchasers should, under sec. 23, Act I (B.C.) of 1895, have been allowed a refund of the purchase money. 3. It is unnecessary for us to enter into a discussion of these numerous pleas, because we consider that the first of them must prevail. 4. We do not think that a suit can be brought for the setting aside of a portion of a sale, and that is what the Plaintiffs ask for in this suit. The property sold at the sale was a 3 annas odd share of a certain property. The Plaintiff does not own the entire property. He owns a 2 annas odd share of it, and he prays for the setting aside of the sale in respect of that share He has paid Court-fee duty on the value of that share only. Now, a sale cannot be set aside partially. The Plaintiff seems to have mistaken his remedy. He might have asked for the setting aside of the sale of the whole share, making his co-sharers, who did not join with him in the suit, parties Defendants. Now, a sale cannot be set aside partially. The Plaintiff seems to have mistaken his remedy. He might have asked for the setting aside of the sale of the whole share, making his co-sharers, who did not join with him in the suit, parties Defendants. They were made parties Defendants, and, at their own instance, co-Plaintiffs, it is true, but the Plaintiff did not ask for the setting aside of the sale of the whole property. Further, the Plaintiff might have allowed the sale to stand, and might merely have prayed that the Defendants 2nd party his co sharers, who have been found by the Subordinate Judge to be the real purchasers of the property, should reconvey his share to the Plaintiff as was done in the case of Bhooban Chandra Sen v. Ram Soondar Surmah ILR 3 Cal. 300 (1877). But he has not done so. The Subordinate Judge has made the Defendants 2nd party co-Plaintiffs with the Plaintiff. But this does not cure the defect in the suit, viz., that the suit is not for the setting aside of the sale of the whole property, and further the Defendants 2nd party, when made Plaintiffs, do not prosecute the suit. The plaint has not been amended. The Plaintiff seeks no relief against any of the Defendants other than the 2nd party Defendants. Hence it would appear that on this ground alone, the suit must fail. We accordingly decree this appeal with costs.