Punchanun Bundopadhya, Minor By His ... vs Rabia Bibi And Ors. on 18 June, 1890
3. It undoubtedly does apply as regards the parties, for there is on the one side the plaintiff, who is the decree-holder and the auction-purchaser, and on the other the representatives of the judgment-debtor. The fact that they claim the jote not through the judgment-debtor but adversely to him would not prevent the operation of Section 244 see Punchanun Bundopadhya v. Rabia Bibi (1890) I.L.R., 17 Cal, 711. The plaintiff is also none the less a party to the suit because she happens to be the auction-purchaser. Is then the question raised one relating to the execution of the decree? That question is whether the jotes sold at the execution sale belonged to the judgment-debtor or to the persons who now represent the judgment-debtor, and from whom it is sought to obtain possession with the aid of the Court. There is also another question involved, and that is whether, having regard to the provisions of the Tenancy Act (if those provisions apply) the jotes were not properly sold in execution of the decrees obtained against the appellants' father so as to bind the appellants even if the jotes do belong to them.