S.S. Sundar, J.

1. The defendant in the suit in O.S. no. 229 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The brief facts that are necessary to dispose of this Second Appeal are as follows :

1.1 The suit property originally belonged to the defendant and a suit came to be filed in O.S. No. 56 of 1982 by Indian Bank against the defendant for recovery of money. To execute the money decree, the Indian Bank filed execution petition in E.P. No. 18 of 1995 and brought the suit property for sale. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff in the Court auction sale that was held on 12.11.1999 for a sum of Rs.25,100/-. The sale was confirmed on 12.01.2000 and a Sale Certificate was also obtained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, after obtaining the Sale Certificate, filed E.A. No. 183 of 2000 for delivery of possession and the said application was dismissed for default.

1.2 In the meanwhile, it appears that there was another suit for partition by the defendant’s sisters at the instance of the defendant and the same was also dismissed. The plaintiff failed to take steps to restore the application for delivery of possession and according to him, he came to know about the dismissal of the application for default after few years. Thereafter, the present suit is filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession from the defendant. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 49 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. As against the concurrent judgment and decree of the Courts below, the above Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

2. Though several substantial questions of law have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law while admitting the Second Appeal:

(1) Whether a separate suit by the auction purchaser for recovery of possession is barred under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code?

(2) Whether the respondent/plaintiff, having filed an application in execution for the delivery of the property based on his purchase in the auction conducted in execution of the decree and having allowed it to be dismissed for default, is debarred from filing a suit for the delivery of the property purchased in Court auction?

3. On the first question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a separate suit is barred in view of Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code. Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code reads as follows:

"47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.- (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) omitted by Act 104 of 1976 effective from 1-2-1977

(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.

Explanation I: For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose Suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.

Explanation II: (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the degree is passed; and

(b) All questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section."

4. In the case of Harnandrai v. Debidutt reported in AIR 1973 SC 2423 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: