A purchaser in execution of a money-decree in one suit is not the representative of the judgment-debtor in another suit and cannot claim a right to prefer an appeal and a second appeal against the decision in the claim petition in the other suit.

1. The purchaser in execution of a money-decree passed in one suit (which might be called suit X) between decree-holder A and judgment-debtor B is not the representative of the judgment-debtor B in suit Y when he prefers a claim petition when the properties are or have been attached in execution of the money-decree passed in suit Y between decree-holder A and the judgment-debtor B, though the judgment-debtors are the same in both suits. He (the purchaser) cannot, therefore, take advantage of the provisions of Section 47. Civil Procedure Code, and claim a right to prefer an appeal and a second appeal against the decision in the claim petition in the Y suit. [See observations in Nadamuni Narayana lyengar v. Veerabhadra Pillai 8 Ind. Cas. 429 : 34 M. 417 : (1910) M.W.N. 602 : 9 M.L.T. 152 : 21 M.L.J. 928 as to under what particular circumstances a Court auction-purchaser can be treated as representative of the decree-holder or judgment-debtor and as to what proceedings can be considered as falling under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, though a Court auction purchaser who cannot be considered the representative of either the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor is interested in the result of and is, therefore, made a party to the proceedings.]

2. The lower Appellate Courts view that no appeal lay to it is correct and we dismiss this second appeal with costs.