Ayling J.

1. The facts of the case are sufficiently set forth in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge : and his decision appears to me to be correct. Two points are argued on behalf of the petitioner, (1) that the present suit is not maintainable and (2) that it is barred by Article 62 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act.

2. As regards the first point, the Court auction under which plaintiff (Respondent) purchased the property, the filing of O.S. No. 341 of 05 to declare the title of a third person other than the Judgment-debtor and the final decision of that suit, all took place, while thfe old Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882) was in force. It has been repaatedly held that under Section 315 of that Act a suit by a Court auction purchaser to recover the sale price from the decree-holder would lie where it was found on a suit brought by a third party that the judgment-debtor has no title whatever to the property sold in Court auction (vide Gurnshidawa v. Gangaya (1897) I.L.R. 22 B. 783 following Munnah Singh v. Gajadhar Singh (1883) I.L.R. 5. a. 577 Pachappan v. Narayana (1887) I.L.R. 11 M. 269 and Nilakanta v. Imam Sahib (1892) I.L.R. 16 M. 361) Plaintiffs right of sui