JUDGMENT

Carr, J - Stripped of non-essentials the facts of this case are as follows: Ko Thaw is the husband of Ma Kale Ma, deceased, and defendant-respondent 2 is her daughter by a prior marriage.

2. In Suit No. 17 of 1928 of the Sub-divisional Court of Kyauktan a Chettyar firm obtained a decree against Ko Thaw as the legal representative of Ma Kale Ma, and against him personally. In Civil Execution No. 98 of 1928 of the same Court, a holding of paddy land measuring 70.01 acres was attached. In Civil Misc. No. 13 of 1929 of the same Court, Ma Ngwe Myaing and her brother Maung Soe Win applied for removal of the attachment, claiming to be owners of the land in their own right, and not as heirs of their mother Ma Kale Ma. They obtained, on 27th May 1929, an order removing the attachment on one-half interest in the land, which was found to belong to them.

3. But in four other suits in the District Court of Hanthawaddy creditors had obtained decrees against Ko Thaw and Maung Soe Win both personally and as legal representatives of Ma Kale Ma and against Ma Ngwe Myaing as legal representative of Ma Kaie Ma. In proceedings in execution of each of these decrees the same land was attached, no objection was taken by Ma Ngwe Myaing to any of these attachments and the land was brought to sale by the District Court under these decrees on 1st June 1929, and was bought by the present plaintiff-appellant U Tun Hlaing, a stranger to the suit, for Rs. 10,450. Symbolical possession was given to him and he found defendant 1 in possession as a tenant. Defendant 1 refusing to attorn to him as his tenant, U Tun Hlaing filed this suit against him for damages for use and occupation. Defendant 1 pleaded that he had signed a tenancy agreement in favour of Maung Soe Win and Ma Ngwe Myaing; he was quite willing to pay the rent to whoever was entitled to it, but did not wish to have to pay twice over. On this Maung Soe Win and Ma Ngwe Myaing were joined as defendants in the suit. Maung Soe Win disclaimed interest and took no further part in the suit. (The fact that the decrees in the District Court were against him personally suffices to account for this.) Ma Ngwe Myaing however claimed to be the owner of a one-fourth interest in the land in her own right and not as the heir of her mother, Ma Kale Ma. Both Courts below have found her claim established and consequently have given the plaintiff a decree only for three-fourths of the amount claimed by him, and against this he appeals. The respondents have not appeared.

4. An important and difficult question of law arises in the appeal. It is I think settled law that a person who is impleaded in a suit as a legal representative of a deceased person is a party to the suit within the meaning of Section 47, Civil P.C. In this Court this has been decided in V.T. Arunachalam Chetty v. Maung San Ngwe A.I.R. 1924 Rang. 323. Ma Ngwe Myaing if she had any claim to the attached property in. her own right ought to have raised that claim in the executing Court by way of an objection to the attachment and sale. She did not do this in respect of the four attachments in the District Court, but stood by and allowed the sale to proceed.

5. The question is whether in these circumstances, she can be allowed to set up that claim in defence in the present suit.

6. U Tun Hlaing being a stranger to the previous suits and to the execution proceedings he cannot in my opinion be held to be a party to those suits within the meaning of Section 47, Civil P.C. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Prosunno Coomar Sanyal v. Kali Das Sanyal [1892] 19 Cal. 683 expressed approval of the decisions in Sakaram Govind Kale v. Damodar Ahharam Gujar [1885] 9 Bom. 468 and Kuriyali v. Mayan [1884] 7 Mad. 255, and said:

It is of the utmost importance that all objections to execution sales should be disposed of as cheaply and as speedily as possible. Their Lordships are glad to find that the Courts in India have not placed any narrow constructions on the lang