Muttusami Ayyar and Hutchins, JJ.
1. We think that this appeal must prevail. The respondent claims under an execution purchase of the right, title and interest of the appellant's uncle. The Lower Appellate Court ought not to have allowed the question whether the decree against the uncle was founded on an ancestral debt, to be raised. The plaintiff was under no obligation to pay his uncle's debt, and the sale of the property under a decree against the uncle could not pass the plaintiff's share. The case is in fact governed by Armugam v. Sabapathi I.L.R. 5 Mad. 12 and Subramanian v. Subramanian I.L.R. 5 Mad. 125 as we see no distinction between the case of brothers and that of uncle and nephew.
2. The Subordinate Judge's decree must be reversed and the Munsif's decree restored, so far as they relate to the property No. 8, and the fifth defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs of both appeals.