AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The purchaser in execution of a money-decree passed in one suit (which might be called suit X) between decree-holder A and judgment-debtor
B is not the representative of the judgment-debtor B in suit Y when he prefers a claim petition when the properties are or have been attached in
execution of the money-decree passed in suit Y between decree-holder A and the judgment-debtor B, though the judgment-debtors are the same
in both suits. He (the purchaser) cannot, therefore, take advantage of the provisions of Section 47. Civil Procedure Code, and claim a right to
prefer an appeal and a second appeal against the decision in the claim petition in the Y suit. [See observations in Nadamuni Narayana lyengar v.
Veerabhadra Pillai 8 Ind. Cas. 429 as to under what particular circumstances a Court auction-purchaser can be treated as representative of the
decree-holder or judgment-debtor and as to what proceedings can be considered as falling u/s 47, Civil Procedure Code, though a Court auction
purchaser who cannot be considered the representative of either the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor is interested in the result of and is,
therefore, made a party to the proceedings.]
The lower Appellate Court''s view that no appeal lay to it is correct and we dismiss this second appeal with costs.