1. The only decision brought to my notice is that of the Judicial Committee in Vadivelu Mudaliar v. Peria Manicka Mudaliar A.I.R. 1920 P.C. 30. There, there was an agreement before the 'court sale by which A agreed to purchase at a court auction (to come off later) for and on behalf of B and then to convey the property to B. There was another agreement after the court sale executed by A and B1 reiterating the terms of the original agreement. The Judicial Committee pointed out that if the original agreement had stood alone, Section 66, Civil P.C., may be a bar, but that since there was another agreement after court sale, Section 66 did not apply. In the case before us, there was not merely an agreement to convey the property executed after the court sale, but there was an actual sale deed executed by the person who purchased the property in court auction conveying the property to the plaintiff. This case is directly covered by the observations of the Judicial Committee in Vadivelu Mudaliar v. Peria Manicka Mudaliar A.I.R. 1920 P.C. 30 which, I consider, are equally applicable to a case where there is a sale deed after the court sale executed by the court auction-purchaser in favour of the real owner. In the case before the Judicial Committee an agreement to convey to the real owner executed by the court auction-purchaser after his purchase was enforceable. The subsequent agreement was merely in pursuance of and in reiteration of the prior agreement, which if it had stood alone, would have no validity. If in that case Section 66 is not a bar, I fail to see how in a case where the parties went further and a sale deed was actually executed in favour of the real owner by the court auction-purchaser after his purchase the result can possibly be different. I hold that the decision of the lower Court is right and dismiss the second appeal with costs. There will be advocate's fee only in S.A. No. 664 of 1943.