JUDGMENT Prinsep, J. - A person, claiming under the Mahomedan law a share in some immoveable property which had been sold in execution of a decree against his co-sharers, applied u/s 310A Code of Civil Procedure, to be allowed to make a deposit within the terms of that section and notwithstanding objection taken, he has been allowed to make such deposit and the sale has been accordingly set aside. A Rule has been obtained to consider this matter. It seems to me that the Petitioner who made the application u/s 310A is not a person within the terms of that section, as he is not a person whose immoveable property has been sold under this chapter. It is quite possible that in describing the property as the property of the judgment-debtor, his share may have been included. But that would not affect his right or title or entitle him to come u/s 310A on the ground that his immoveable property has been sold. The proceedings to which he was no party cannot possibly affect him. To use the words of Mr. Justice Ranade in the case of Ramchandra v. Rakhmabai ILR (1898) Bom. 450 (453), "as his interests were not affected by the execution sale, his application was very properly rejected by the lower Court." These are cases which have been considered by us and which have been referred to by the lower Court as authority for holding that a mortgagee may come in u/s 310A. Now, so far as this Court is concerned, the cases, I believe I may correctly state, have proceeded on the ground that the sales being under the Bengal Tenancy Act would convey to the purchaser a right to avoid these incumbrances; and therefore, it has been held that the mortgagee has such an interest in the immoveable property, that he is entitled to come in u/s 310A, or, I should say more correctly, within the corresponding section, which is exactly in the same terms, namely, Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The facts of the case of Srinivasa Ayyangar v. Ayyathorai Pillai ILR (1897) Mad. The facts of the case of Srinivasa Ayyangar v. Ayyathorai Pillai ILR (1897) Mad. 416 are not fully stated; but so far as the latter part of the judgment of the learned Judges is concerned, I am unable, after fullest consideration, to agree with it, for it seems to proceed on two cases decided by this High Court, in both of which the sales would confer a right to the purchaser to avoid the incumbrances and on this ground it was held that the enoumbrancer was entitled to come in within the terms of Section 310A, or rather Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Rule must, therefore, be made absolute and the order of the Munsiff set aside. The Petitioner is entitled to his remedy under the ordinary law and his possession, or his title, has in no way been affected by the proceedings of the sale in execution of the decree against his co-sharers. 2. A further objection was taken at the latest stage of the case by the learned pleader who opposes the Rule, that we have no authority to proceed in this matter u/s 622, Code of Civil Procedure. We think that this is specially a case in which such interference is allowed and is necessary within the terms of that section. 3. The Petitioner will be entitled to two gold mohurs as costs of this Rule, which is made absolute. Stephen J. 4. I concur entirely in the judgment of my learned brother and I have only this to say that, on the cases which have been laid before us and particularly on the case of Paresh Nath Singha v. Nabogopal Chattopadhya ILR (1901) Cal. 1, it seems to me plain, that the only person or persons who may apply u/s 310A, Code of Civil Procedure, are the judgment-debtor himself and certain persons claiming an interest in the property by a transfer from the judgment-debtor. In the present case, it is plain that the persons, whose right to apply it has been sought to establish, based their claim upon an interest which is no way derived from the judgment-debtor.