The rights acquired by a purchaser of an undivided share of a property through court sale can be enforced through a suit for partition of the joint property, and the dismissal of an application for delivery under the Civil Procedure Code does not affect the right to bring a suit for partition.

1. The facts of the case are as follows : In execution of a decree for money obtained against the second defendant who is the father of defendants Nos. 3 to 5 and the undivided brother of the first defendant, the plaintiffs purchased-the undivided half share of the second defendant in the house in dispute. Subsequently the first plaintiff purchased the first defendants share also. The present suit is to recover possession of the entire house. In so far as the second defendants share was concerned the suit was dismissed on the ground that the proper remedy was by execution of the decree under Section 244, Civil Procedure Code. This view is not sustainable. The only right acquired by the Court sale against the second defendant was a right to effectuate the sale by a suit for partition of the joint property of the co-parceners and the delivery to the plaintiffs of what might be allotted to the share of the second defendant at the partition.

2. It was not competent to the Court in the circumstances of this case, on a mere application for execution by the purchaser to enforce the right of the purchaser by an order partition. Consequently no orders of the kind contemplated by Section 318 Civil Procedure Code, could have been passed in favour of the plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case. It follows that Section 244 could not have been a bar to a suit brought by these plaintiffs for partition. The order therefore relied on by the Judge dismissing the application for the so-called delivery under Section 318 does not affect the case. As after the purchase of the first defendants right the first plaintiff become entitled to the whole house against both the co-parceners whose rights had passed to him, the decree dismissing the suit as against the second defendant is wrong. His sons, defendants Nos. 3 to 5, are bound by the sale against their father, no case as to the nature of the debt entitling them to question the sale having been put forward.

3. We therefore modify the decree of the Judge by allowing the plaintiffs claim in its entirety with costs throughout.