Satish Chandra, C. J.

1. BECHULAL obtained a compromise decree against Nanhu Kumar for recovery of Rs.5,802/- on December 21, 1950. Bechulal, the decree-holder, put the decree in execution. The western portion of house No. D-47/176 was attached and put up for auction. At the auction, it was purchased by the appellant Har Narain Sahu for Rs. 4, 800/-. The sale was confirmed on July 18, 1954. On September 6, 1954, the auction-purchaser obtained possession.

2. ON March 17, 1954, one Narain Das and Smt. Boda filed suit No. 160 of 1954 against Nanhu Kumar, Bechulal as well as the auction-purchaser Har Narain for the declaration that the plaintiffs were the owners of the property and the sale in execution of the decree in favour of Bechulal was illegal and ineffective. The suit was decreed on 23-5-1959. It was declared that the attachment and sale of the property in suit in execution of the decree of suit No. 119 of 1950 was Illegal and ineffective as against the rights of the plaintiffs.

The decree-holder Bechulal filed an appeal which was dismissed on May 7, 1960. This decree became final.

3. HAR Narain, the auction-purchaser, on July 28, 1959, filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC claiming refund of the purchase money. He, on May 9,1961, filed an independent suit (suit no. 42 of 1961) against Bechulal, decree-holder in the first suit, and the heirs of Narain Das (the plaintiffs of the second suit) for recovery of Rs. 4, 800/-, the auction-sale price. The trial court decreed the suit as well as execution application under Section 47 of the CPC for recovery of Rs. 4,800/-. The defendants went up in appeal which was allowed and the decree set aside. The suit as well as the application under section 47 of the CPC were dismissed.

4. AGGRIEVED, the auction-purchaser Har Narain has filed the present two second appeals.

The lower appellate court held itself bound by a Pull Bench decision of this Court in Amar Nath v. Chotelal Durga Prasad, 1938 AWR 668. When the appeals were heard by a learned Single Judge, he felt that this Full Bench required reconsideration. He, therefore, referred the case to a larger Bench. The matter has now been placed before this Division Bench.

5. WE have heard learned counsel and, in our opinion, the view taken by the Full Bench of our Court in Amar Nath's case and which has stood for the last 40 years, does not require reconsideration. It is true that there is a difference of opinion between the various High Courts on the question decided by the Full Bench, but that, in our opinion, is not sufficient to merit reopening of the question.

6. THE Full Bench in Amar Nath's case held that there in no warranty of title to a purchaser of immovable property at court auction. The auction-purchaser has no right to recover the purchase price by a suit from the decree-holder in case it subsequently turns out that what he had purchased did not belong to the judgment-debtor. A statutory right was granted under the CPC of 1877 and 1882 by which an auction-purchaser could sue to recover the purchase price under those Codes. With the repeal of the Code of 1882 by the Code of 1908 that statutory right came to an end, as the present CPC made no such provision. There is no right, either in law or in equity, for an auction-purchaser to recover under such circumstances.

This Full Bench case is applicable to a situation where, in a subsequent suit, at the instance of a stranger-third party, it is declared that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the property which was auction-sold. For the appellant, reliance was placed upon an earlier Full Bench in Bindeshari Pershad Tewari v. Badal Singh, AIR 1923 All. 394. In that case, the decree which was executed by sale of immovable property, itself was set aside in a subsequent suit instituted by a third party-stranger. The question was whether the sale which had been duly confirmed could still be held to subsist in the eye of law, when the decree, in the execut