Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This Full Bench has been constituted to decide two questions referred by Krishnaswami Aiyangar and Somayya, JJ., in a second appeal arising out of a suit for possession. The two questions are:

1. Whether an application by a stranger auction-purchaser for delivery of possession as against the judgment-debtor or his representative is covered by Section 47(C. P. Code)?

2. Whether Section 47 applies to a case where the dispute arises between a party and his own representative or between the two persons who both represent the same party?

2. Before proceeding to discuss these questions I will state the circumstances under which they arise.

3. One Kalathi Mudaliar obtained a money decree and on the 18th September, 1921, in execution of that decree attached certain immovable property. On the 26th September, 1921, the judgment-debtors widow sold the property to defendants 1 to 3. On the 7th January, 1922, the property was sold by the Court in the execution proceedings and the plaintiff, a stranger, became the auction-purchaser. On 1st March, 1932, the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the property. The trial Court (the District Munsifs Court of Tirupathi) dismissed the suit on the ground that Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred its institution. The plaintiff then appealed to the Court of the District Judge of Chittoor, who concurred in the decision of the trial Court and against his decision the second appeal out of which this reference arises was filed. The learned Judges who have made the reference have made an exhaustive examination of the authorities, and although it will be necessary to refer to some of the cases with which they have dealt it will not be necessary to travel over all the ground.

4. Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

1. All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

2. The Court may, subject to any objection as to limitation or jurisdiction, treat a proceeding under this section as a suit or a suit as a proceeding and may, if necessary, order payment of any additional court-fees.

3. Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.

5. It will be observed that for a matter to come within the purview of the section the following conditions must be fulfilled : (i) It must relate to a question arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed or their representatives, and (ii) it must relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. If these conditions are fulfilled the question must be determined by the Court executing the decree and a separate suit will not lie.

6. In Prosunno Kumar Sanyal v. Kali Das Sanyal, the Privy Council, while pointing out that Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1872, which corresponds to Section 47 of the present Code, contemplated a question between the parties to the suit with regard to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, observed that it did not necessarily follow that the question must be raised by a party to the suit. An auction-purchaser could have a question decided under Section 244 when the question raised was a question which affected the parties. The Board did not, however, consider the question whether an auction-purchaser was a representative of the decree-holder or of the judgment-debtor.

7. There has been much controversy in this and other High Courts in India with regard to the question whether a stranger to a suit who purchases property at a Court auction in execution of a money decree must be regarded as a representative of a party. Owing to a conflict of decisions of this Court, Oldfield and Sesh