Judgement Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (February 14, 1914) affirming a decree of the District Judge of North Arcot. The suit was instituted by the appellant to redeem properties sold in 1887 under a mortgage decree. The first respondent was the son of the mortgagee, who was purchaser at the sale, and the other respondents were sub-purchasers. The facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships. The District Judge dismissed the suit, and his decree was affirmed by the High Court. The learned judges (Miller and Tyabji JJ.) found that the appellant had been duly represented in the proceed ings, his guardian having made an application therein, and held that the appellant was bound by the sale. They were of opinion that though the decree was not strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, ss. 88 and 89, it was effective against the parties, and that s. 99 of that Act did not apply. They further held that the sub-purchasers were bona fide transferees for consideration within s. 96 of the Trusts Act (II. of 1882), and wore not affected by any trust which might have arisen. 1917. Dec. 14. Sir William Garth, for the appellant. The attachment and the sale were made upon the decree of April, 1886, which was set aside against the appellant. He was not bound by the sale and is entitled to redeem. Further, neither of the decrees was in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in that there was no decree giving the mortgagor six months to pay, as required by ss. 86 and 88, and no decree absolute for sale under s. 89. The decree and sale were consequently nullities and did not affect the appellants right to redeem. As no title whatever passed as against the appellant the sub-purchasers could gain no title under s. 96 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. [Reference was also made to Khiarajmal v. Daim (( 1904) L. R. 32 I. A. 23, 33, 35.) ; Rashid-un-nisa v. Muhammad Ismail Khan (( 1909) L. R, 36 I. A. 168.); Mallikarjunada v. Lingamurti Pantula (( 1902) 1. L. R. 25 M. 244.); Transfer of Property Act (IV. of 1882), ss. 58 (b), 60, 85, 99 ; and Code of Civil Procedure (XIV. of 1882), ss. L. R. 25 M. 244.); Transfer of Property Act (IV. of 1882), ss. 58 (b), 60, 85, 99 ; and Code of Civil Procedure (XIV. of 1882), ss. 287, 288.] Sir Erle Richards, K.C., and Kenworthy Brown, for the first respondent. The sale took place under the decree of November, 1886, which was substituted for that of April. It is not material that the attachment was at an earlier date, there being a decree for sale made by a Court having jurisdiction. If there was an irregularity no substantial injury was sustained, and under s. 311 of the Code of 1882 it did not vitiate the sale. All parties knew what was being sold ; the substance of the transaction must be looked at Sripat Singh v. Tagore. (( 1916) L. R. 44 1. A. 1.) So, too, any departure from the form required by the Transfer of Property Act is now immaterial, since the sale was under an order of a competent Court. Further, no fresh suit to set aside the sale lies. The minors were parties to the suit and under s. 244 of the Code of 1882 could only question the sale by application to the Court executing the decree Prosunno Coomar v. Kasi Das Sanyal. (( 1892) L. R. 19 I. A. 166.) Upon the grant of a certificate under s. 316 the title of the purchaser became absolute. [They were stopped.] Sir William Garth, in reply, referred to Thakur Barmha v. Jiban Ram. (( 1913) L. R. 41 I. A. 38.) Dec. 14. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR JOHN EDGE. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Madras dated February 17, 1914, which affirmed a decree dated February 9, 1910, of the District Judge of North Arcot, by which the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was brought in the Court of the District Judge of North Arcot on November 16, 1907, to redeem three mortgages dated respectively December 12, 1876, January 7, 1879, and May 10, 1881. The mortgages were of ancestral property, and were made by the father of the plaintiff before the plaintiff or his brother, since deceased, was born. The mortgage of January 7, 1879, was in favour of N. Vijayaragavachariar, a vakil, to whom their Lordships will refer as the vakil. The mortgages were of ancestral property, and were made by the father of the plaintiff before the plaintiff or his brother, since deceased, was born. The mortgage of January 7, 1879, was in favour of N. Vijayaragavachariar, a vakil, to whom their Lordships will refer as the vakil. The mortgages of December 12, 1876, and May 10, 1881, vested by assignment in the vakil. The plaintiff in this suit was born in September, 1881 ; his brother was born in May, 1882. On March 19, 1886, the vakil brought in the District Court of North Arcot, a suit for sale on the mortgage of May 10, 1881, against the plaintiffs father, the plaintiff, aged four years, and his brother, aged three years, the brothers being described as " maintained by the first defendant," who was their father. The suit was entered on the files of the Court as " Original Suit No. 5 of 1886." Their father, who had not been appointed as their guardian for the suit, objected that he was not their guardian, but the District Judge overruled the objection, and on April 15, 1886, made a decree in the following terms " It is ordered that plaintiff do recover Rs. 10,891, together with further interest at 6 per cent, per annum from date of plaint to date of payment and costs, to be recovered from the first defendant personally, and by sale of the mortgaged property." That decree was doubtless intended to be in compliance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but it did not comply with those provisions. On August 16, 1886, the vakil presented to the District Court his petition, under s. 230 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, for execution of the decree of April 15, 1886. The petition was entered on the files of the Court as " Execution Petition No. 57 of 1886 in 0. On August 16, 1886, the vakil presented to the District Court his petition, under s. 230 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, for execution of the decree of April 15, 1886. The petition was entered on the files of the Court as " Execution Petition No. 57 of 1886 in 0. S. (Original Suit) No. 5 of 1886," and by it the petitioner prayed " that the amount may be recovered with further costs, together with further interest, by the attachment and sale of immovable property set out in the schedule herewith filed." In that petition the present plaintiff and his brother were described as minors, defendants " by their guardian the first defendant." In the schedule the vakil disclosed the fact that there existed, the mortgages of December 12, 1876, and January 7, 1879. On August 18, 1886, the warrant of attachment was issued, and on September 13, 1886, a notice of sale was issued. On September 28, 1886, one Govindaraju Mudali, who was a maternal uncle of the present plaintiff and his brother, applied to the District Court to be appointed their guardian and to have the decree of April 15, 1886, set aside on the ground that their father was not their proper guardian. Govindaraju Mudali apparently contended in support of his application that the debt in respect of which the mortgage of May 10, 1881, had been given was not one which the minors or the properties were liable to discharge. On November 10, 1886, the District Judge held that the appointment of the father as guardian had been illegal, and in his place appointed Govindaraju Mudali as guardian of the minors, and set aside the decree of April 15, 1886, as against them. Govindaraju was ordered to put in a written statement on November 15, 1886, on behalf of the minors, but he failed to do so and did not appear. On November 15, 1886, the District Judge made a decree that the plaintiff (the vakil) " do recover Rs. 10,891, together with further interest at 6 per cent, per annum from date of plaint to date of pay ment and costs, to be recovered from the first defendant personally and by sale of the mortgaged property." That decree did not comply with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but it was not appealed from and it became final. It was obviously intended to be in supersession of the decree of April 15, 1886, and must be regarded as having superseded that decree. On January 24, 1887, the Court of the District Judge caused a proclamation of the intended sale to be made under s. 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. The proclamation is described on the face of it as in 0. S. No. 5 of 1886, application No. 57 of 1886, and proclaimed that " Whereas the immovable property mentioned in the list attached hereto and belonging to the said defendants (the father and his two sons) has been attached upon a petition being presented for execution of the decree passed in the above suit. Take notice that if the amounts specified below be not paid into this Court, or if no other steps be taken to satisfy the decree, the said property shall be sold in public auction in this Court on the 19th September, 1887, and that in that sale the right, title, and interest possessed by the above defendants alone in respect of that property shall be sold." So far as appears from the documents in the record, the only attachment which had issued was that of August 18, 1886. It appears that Govindaraju Mudali, as the guardian of the minors. had appealed to the High Court at Madras from some order which the District Judge had made on December 20, 1886, in original suit No. 5 of 1886. What the order appealed from was does not appear, nor is there anything in the record which suggests what the nature of the order was. However, that appeal not having been disposed of, Govindaraju Mudali, at some time between January 24, 1887, and March 2, 1887, applied to the High Court for an order to stay the sale of the property attached in execution of the decree of the District Court of North Arcot in original suit No. 5 of 1886. That application was dismissed by the High Court on August 1, 1887. On February 28, 1887, the District Court made an order permitting the vakil to bid at the sale. On September 19, 1887, the immovable properties in question were sold, subject to incumbrances, by public auction, and the vakil became the purchaser. That application was dismissed by the High Court on August 1, 1887. On February 28, 1887, the District Court made an order permitting the vakil to bid at the sale. On September 19, 1887, the immovable properties in question were sold, subject to incumbrances, by public auction, and the vakil became the purchaser. The sale was confirmed by the District Judge on December 13, 1887, and he on February 1, 1888, gave the sale certificate under his hand and the seal of the Court. The vakil died before this present suit; the first respondent is his son. The other respondents are purchasers from the vakil. The father of the present plaintiff died in May, 1894. The plaintiffs brother died in September, 1904. The present plaintiff, his brother and their father, had constituted a Hindu joint family. On behalf of the appellant here it was contended that the sale took place in execution of the decree of April 15, 1886, and not in execution of the decree of November 15, 1886, and that under such circumstances only the right, title, and interest of the father were sold. That contention is based on the fact that the attachment of August 18, 1886, was made under the decree of April 15, 1886. The sale must have been under the decree of November 15, 1886. No one was or could have been misled as to the decree under which the sale was taking place. The proclamation of sale of January 24, 1887, was made subsequent to the decree for sale of November 15, 1886, and must have been made consequent on that decree, with the knowledge of all parties and without challenge, and that proclamation shows that what was to be sold by auction was the right, title, and interest in the property of the defendants to the suit of March 19, 1886, and the certificate of sale shows that the right, title, and interest in the property of the defendants to that suit were sold to the vakil. The present plaintiff and his brother were defendants to that suit, under the guardianship of Govindaraju Mudali, at the time when the decree of November 15, 1886, was made and at the time when the sale took place, and thence until the sale was confirmed and the certificate of sale was made. The present plaintiff and his brother were defendants to that suit, under the guardianship of Govindaraju Mudali, at the time when the decree of November 15, 1886, was made and at the time when the sale took place, and thence until the sale was confirmed and the certificate of sale was made. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellant here that as the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, were not complied with in the suit for sale of March 19, 1886, and as no day was fixed by the Court on which payment might be made within six months from the date of declaring in Court the amount clue, the defendants to the suit of March 19, 1886, were not debarred from a right to redeem. It appears to their Lordships that the answer to that contention is that, whether or not the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, were complied with, the property and all right, title, and interest of those defendants in it were in fact sold to the vakil in execution of a decree of a Court which had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in which the decree was made, and that decree was not appealed. By s. 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, it was enacted that " The following questions shall be determined by order of the Court executing a decree and not by a separate suit (namely)—.... question arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree, or to the stay of execution thereof." This Board decided in Prosunno Coomar Sanyal v. Kasi Das Sanyal (L. R. 19 1. A. 166.) that s. 244 had been rightly held in India to apply in a case in which the question raised concerned the auction purchaser at an auction sale as well as the parties to the suit. In this case the vakil was the auction purchaser and was also a party to the suit. The questions raised "in the present suit could have been raised before the sale was confirmed, and, if so raised, would have been determined by the Court which was executing the decree of November 15, 1886. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal fails, and should be dismissed. The questions raised "in the present suit could have been raised before the sale was confirmed, and, if so raised, would have been determined by the Court which was executing the decree of November 15, 1886. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal fails, and should be dismissed. The appellant must pay the costs- of this appeal.