JUDGMENT :

Stanley, C.J.:— The question raised in this appeal appears to us to be concluded by the authorities. In the case of Shama Charan Chatterji v. Madhab Chandra Mookerji, [1884] I.L.R., 11 Cal., 93. it was held that the delivery of formal possession in execution of a decree for possession gives a cause of action against a defendant, who remains in occupation of the property, which may be enforced in a regular suit. The question was later on considered in the case of Hari Mohan Shah v. Babur Ali, [1897] I.L.R., 24 Cal., 715. and it was held that in a suit for possession of land by an auction purchaser who had obtained symbolical possession and the defendant objected that the suit was barred by limitation, it not having been brought within 12 years from the date of the auction purchase, article 144 of the second schedule of the limitation Act applied, and that as the suit was brought within 12 years from the date when the auction purchaser obtained symbolical possession, it was not barred by limitation. We think that these case were rightly decided. In this Court in the case of Mangli Prasad v. Debi Din, [1897] I.L.R., 19 All., 499. our brother, Banerji, held, and rightly, we t