1. We think that the learned Judge was right in holding that the sale was not binding on the reversioners. Narasamma, who was brought on the record as the legal representative of Lakshami Devamma, could not in any view of the case have been her true legal representative. Her only possible interest in the property would have been as one entitled to claim maintenance from it and this interest could not have been affected by the sale. As a matter of fact she had not even that interest in it, as she had other property for securing to her her maintenance. The property at the time of the sale was in the hands of a usufructuary mortgagee, and the auction-purchaser acquired merely the equity of redemption, which amounted in effect to a right to possession 16 years after the sale. As soon as the time for redemption expired and the estate fell into possession, the reversioners instituted the present suit. In these circumstances the remarks of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Khiarajmal v. Daim, 7 Bom. L.R. I 32 I.A. 23. Seem to be directly applicable: 'In the opinion of their Lordships, it is not a mere question of form but one of substance. In coming to this conclusion their Lordships are quite sensible of the importance of upholding the title of persons who buy under a judicial sale, but in the present case the real purchaser was the judgment-creditor, who must be held to have had notice of all the facts'.
2. The decree of the lower Appellate Court is confirmed and the second appeal is dismissed with costs.