MURKANAT ALIAS KATTAYAT PATTUMAYI INSANE BY GUARDIAN AND HUSBAND MURKANAT UMMAN KUTTI Vs. PALAKHAL RAMAN MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which has been raised in this case is a pure of question of law, and the facts on which it depends are beyond dispute The question is as to the right of suit, and we have therefore to decide it, though it was not raised in the Courts below.

(2.) The plaintiff was the decree-holder in Original Suit No. 409 of 1880 and became purchaser of the plaint property which was sold in execution of that decree. He applied under Section 318, Civil Procedure .Code, for delivery of the property purchased, but his application was rejected as barred by limitation having been made more than 3 years after the confirmation of the sale, and he brings the present suit to recover possession of the land from the defendant who was the judgment-debtor in C. S. No. 409 of 1880.

(3.) The appellant's Vakil contends that the suit is barred by Section 244, Civil Procedure Code. If the question were not already settled by more decisions than one of this Court and of the Calcutta High Court, we should entertain considerable doubt as to whether proceedings taken by a purchaser to obtain possession of the property purchased could be regarded as " relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree " within the meaning of Section 244, Civil Procedure Code, when such proceedings could not possibly affect the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.