JUDGMENT Gokul Prasad, J. - The facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follow:- The plaintiff and the defendants were joint mortgagees of certain property. The plaintiff having refused to join them the defendants alone sued on the mortgage and made the plaintiff pro forma defendant. This suit was decreed ex parte. In execution proceedings the defendants who were the only decree-holders put the property to sale and purchased the mortgaged property. The plaintiff who had up to that time taken no steps either to assert his rights or to have them protected, brings the present suit for a sixth share of the property purchased at auction by the defendants and in the alternative for Rs. 200 as proportionate amount of the price thereof. The defendants pleaded inter alia section 66 of the CPC in defence. The first Court holding that section 66, Civil Procedure Code, bad no application decreed the claim for possession. The lower appellate Court has held that section 66, Civil Procedure Code, bars the suit for possession but has on defendants' admission given the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 200 minus the costs incurred by the defendants in prosecuting that suit. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal. This appeal has no merits. This is not a case in which one of the several co-decree-holders has purchased the property, and the rule of law laid down in Achaibar Dube v. Tapasi Dube (1) does not apply. The Privy Council case of Ganga Sahai v.Kesri (2) does not apply either. Here it was clearly a case of the decree-holders purchasing the property in their own names. They could not be said to have purchased the property at all for themselves and the present plaintiff, who was then th9 pro forma defendant. The view taken by the lower appellate Court was right. I therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.