The judgment emphasizes the importance of Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code in determining the rights of parties in execution, discharge, or satisfaction of a decree. It also clarifies the representation of a stranger auction purchaser as a representative of both the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder under Section 47.

1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of Niyogi, J.

2. Nagarmal Potdar (respondent 1) got the house in dispute sold on 1-9-1933 by auction in execution of a final decree for sale obtained by him on a mortgage in civil suit No. 65 of 1931. It was knocked down in favour of the appellant Rambhau for a paltry sum of RS. 120.

3. Prior to this sale in execution, the judgment-debtor had sold the house in dispute on 26-8-1933 to one Mt. Tulsabai (who is represented in this appeal by respondent 3 Lilabai) in pursuance of an agreement between them and the decree-holder. Out of the purchase money the decree-holder Nagarmal Potdar received Rs. 1350 from Mr. Tulsabai and obtained a bond for Rs. 150 from the judgment debtor, and he passed a receipt on 27-8-1933 in full satisfaction of his claim on the final decree, and delivered it to Mt. Tulsabai,

4. On 2-9-1933 Ramchandra, the agent of the decree-holder, informed the Court of this full satisfaction and filed the receipt, whereupon the executing Court set aside on 30-9-1933 the sale held in execution on 1-9-1933. That order was, however, passed without notice to the auction-purchaser, whose application for permission to deposit 75 per cent, of the sale proceeds had already been rejected and who had been asked to take back the 25 per cent, of the purchase money which he had deposited. His formal application for confirmation of sale was also rejected on 25-9-1933. He, however, appealed to the District Judge and succeeded in getting the sale confirmed. The revision filed by the judgment-debtor in this Court proved unsuccessful.

5. Thereupon, Mt. Tulsabai filed the civil suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for possession of the house in dispute or in the alternative for refund of the price. That suit also included a claim for possession of the site CDEF in the plaintiff's map, the possession of which had been taken by the auction-purchaser along with the house in dispute, though it was, according to the plaintiff's allegation, not included in the mortgage.

6. The plaintiff's claim for possession, except in respect of the site CDEF, was dismissed and she was granted a decree for possession of that site as against the auction-purchaser and for Rs. 1500 as against the judgment-debtor in the mortgage suit. Not only was this decree upheld in first appeal but the first appellate Court also ordered Nagarmal to pay Rs. 1350 with interest to Tulsabai.

7. In second appeal to this Court that decree has been set aside and the plaintiff's suit has been decreed against the auction-purchaser Rambhau, who has been ordered to deliver possession of the house in suit along with the site CDEF to Tulsabai's legal representative Mt. Lila Bai. Leave to appeal having been granted this Letters Patent appeal has been filed.

8. As remarked by Niyogi, J. in paragraph 9 of his judgment in second appeal the question for decision in this appeal is whether the private sale effected on 26-8-1933 by the judgment debtor in favour of Mt. Tulsabai can prevail against the sale in execution of the final decree held on, 1-9-1933, and that would depend upon what rights Mt. Tulsabai got by the sale in her favour. That in its turn would depend upon whether the adjustment made on 27-8-1933 by payment to the decree-holder satisfied the mortgage decree and killed it. There is no doubt that the decree would have been killed by the adjustment if it had been certified before the auction sale on 1-9-1933.

9. The question is whether it was fully satisfied and killed even though the adjustment was not certified before that sale. Taking into consideration that adjustment, Niyogi, J. came to the conclusion that the decree was satisfied and the rights of the parties under the decree were extinguished.

With great respect we are of the opinion that the question whether the mortgage decree was satisfied cannot be gone into in this suit filed by Tulsabai.

10. For the determination of this question she is the representative of the j