1. The questions arising in this second appeal are, no doubt, questions of law, but they have, in our opinion, all been decided correctly by the lower Appellate Court.
2. With respect to the objection of the plaintiff's purchase of the shares of the defendants Nos. 4 to 7 in Original Suit No. 3 of 1883 on the ground that they wore not personally liable under the decree for the mortgage debt, those defendants were bound to raise any objection they had to the attachment of the property in execution proceedings. See Ramaswami Sastrulu v. Kameswaramma 23 M. 361 (F.B.). The lower Courts have found that all rights in the land, including the shares of defendants Nos. 2 to 7, were attached. If, as is suggested, those defendants had no notice of the attachment and sale, the proper course for them would be to get the sale set aside in execution proceedings. The 1st defendant has been found to have no right in the property. The sale having become final against the defendants Nos. 4 to 7 in Original Suit No. 3 of 1833, the 1st defendant cannot now set up their title.
3. With regard to the question of the plaintiff's purchase having been made without the leave of the Court, that is an objection that could be raised only by the parties to the suit and not by a stranger like the 1st defendant. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.