Heir's title and equity of redemption prevail over later execution sales where prior transfers were never set aside.

A transfer of an heir's interest in estate property was held not to be displaced by later execution sales where the prior purchases had not been avoided in a properly constituted suit, and where the suit did not directly impeach the title within the scope of lis pendens or fraudulent transfer principles. The respondents therefore had no title to redeem the mortgage, because the appellants' earlier acquisition of the equity of redemption prevailed. As to the non-mortgaged properties under administration, the heirs could reach only the ultimate residue, and the appellants' prior purchases in the administration proceedings gave them superior title, defeating the respondents' claim to possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents had a title to redeem the mortgage claimed by the appellants despite the intervening purchases and transfers made in favour of the appellants' nominee; (ii) Whether the respondents were entitled to possession of the non-mortgaged properties claimed by them.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents had a title to redeem the mortgage claimed by the appellants despite the intervening purchases and transfers made in favour of the appellants' nominee.

Analysis: The transfers by which the appellants acquired the shares of the heirs in Taki's estate were not shown to have been avoided in any properly constituted suit. The suit founded on Dhunput's mortgage did not directly and specifically put the title of Taki's heirs in question within the meaning of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and no decree had been made setting aside the purchases under Section 53 of that Act. The subsequent execution sales in Dhunput's suit could only pass the interests of the judgment-debtors, and could not defeat the appellants' prior acquisitions of the equity of redemption.

Conclusion: The respondents had no title to redeem the mortgage, and the appellants' title prevailed.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents were entitled to possession of the non-mortgaged properties claimed by them.

Analysis: The non-mortgaged properties were under administration, and the receiver had dealt with them in the course of administration before the respondents' execution sales could attach them effectively. A purchaser from an heir or residuary beneficiary takes subject to the estate's due administration, and only the ultimate residue can be reached by execution against the heirs. The appellants' purchases in the administration proceedings were prior in point of time and conferred a superior title.

Conclusion: The respondents were not entitled to possession of the non-mortgaged properties, and the appellants' title was superior.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the respondents was set aside, and the earlier decree restoring the appellants' rights to the disputed properties and mortgage interests was affirmed in substance.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer or purchase of an heir's interest cannot be displaced by a later execution sale where the estate is under administration and the judgment-debtor's interest is only in the ultimate residue, and a suit not properly constituted to impeach the transfer cannot avoid it by invoking lis pendens or fraudulent transfer principles.

---