JUDGMENT 1. The Defendant No. 1, who is the Appellant in this appeal, obtained a decree on a mortgage-bond against the father of the Plaintiff in 1885. By that bond the Plaintiff's father mortgaged properties other than the properties the subject of the present suit. The mortgaged properties, it appears, were brought to sale in execution of the mortgage decree and purchased by the mortgagee, the Defendant No. 1. He then took out execution against the properties the subject-matter of the present suit. The Plaintiff in the execution proceedings put in an objection stating that the properties were not the personal properties of his father but were the properties belonging to the family idol and that, as such, they could not be sold in execution of a mortgage-debt; incurred by his father in his personal capacity. The objection was disallowed and the present Plaintiff appealed. In the Appellate Court a preliminary objection was taken on the ground that no appeal lay against an order under sec. 278, C. C. P. On behalf of the Plaintiff lb was then contended that an appeal lay as the application which he had made must be regarded as one under sec. 244, C. C. P. The objection taken by the Respondent, the Defendant No. 1 in the present suit was allowed and the appeal was dismissed on the ground that no appeal lay. Thereafter the present Plaintiff instituted the present suit. The suit went through various vicissitudes in the Courts below, the case being twice remanded before It was finally disposed of by the Munsif on the 24th March 1903. The Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the property In suit was the debutter property of the idol. 2. Against that decision there was an appeal and the Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the Court of first Instance and decreed the Plaintiff's suit with costs. 3. The Defendant No. 1 has appealed and in support of his appeal two points have been urged. The first is, that the suit Is barred by sec 244, C. C. P., and the second is that on the findings of fact of the Appellate Court, the Inference drawn that the land is debutter is not Bound. 4. 3. The Defendant No. 1 has appealed and in support of his appeal two points have been urged. The first is, that the suit Is barred by sec 244, C. C. P., and the second is that on the findings of fact of the Appellate Court, the Inference drawn that the land is debutter is not Bound. 4. We have been referred to various decisions on the first point but we think that, having regard to the previous history of the litigation between the parties, we must hold that the Appellant, Defendant No. 1, is barred from taking this objection in this appeal. In consequence of a contrary objection taken by him in the previous proceedings it was held on the 30th March 1897, that the appeal which the present Plaintiff then preferred on the ground that his application was one under sec 244, C. C. P., was not maintainable as the application was in fact one under sec. 278, C. C. P. We think the Defendant No. 1 cannot be allowed to reopen that question, as the Plaintiff by that order was debarred from an appeal on the ground that the application was not one under sec. 244, C. P. C. 5. As regards the second point, we have read the judgment and are unable to agree that the inference which the lower Appellate Court has drawn from its findings is not sound. In our opinion the inference is a legitimate one and we see no reason to interfere with the conclusion at which the Judge arrived. The result is that this appeal is dismissed with costs.