JUDGMENT : Stanley, C.J.:— The question raised in this appeal appears to us to be concluded by the authorities. In the case of Shama Charan Chatterji v. Madhab Chandra Mookerji, [1884] I.L.R., 11 Cal., 93. it was held that the delivery of formal possession in execution of a decree for possession gives a cause of action against a defendant, who remains in occupation of the property, which may be enforced in a regular suit. The question was later on considered in the case of Hari Mohan Shah v. Babur Ali, [1897] I.L.R., 24 Cal., 715. and it was held that in a suit for possession of land by an auction purchaser who had obtained symbolical possession and the defendant objected that the suit was barred by limitation, it not having been brought within 12 years from the date of the auction purchase, article 144 of the second schedule of the limitation Act applied, and that as the suit was brought within 12 years from the date when the auction purchaser obtained symbolical possession, it was not barred by limitation. We think that these case were rightly decided. In this Court in the case of Mangli Prasad v. Debi Din, [1897] I.L.R., 19 All., 499. our brother, Banerji, held, and rightly, we think, that where possession of property purchased at auction sale in execution of a decree is formally given by the court under section 318 or section 319 of the Code of Civil Procedure, although the actual possession may remain with the judgment-debtor, the date of the granting of such formal possession forms, as against the judgment-debtor, a fresh starting point for limitation in a suit for possession of the property sold brought by the auction purchaser or his representative. It appears to us that the delivery of formal posssession, although the defendant continued in actual possession, effected a complete transfer of the property and furnished a good foundation for a suit when the defendant refused to deliver up actual possession. Section 244 has no application in as much as the proceedings in execution ended with the delivery of formal possession, and that section therefore could not have been successfully invoked by the plaintiff. We therefor dismiss the appeal with costs including fees in this court on the higher scale. 2. An objection has been filed by the respondent under section 561 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We therefor dismiss the appeal with costs including fees in this court on the higher scale. 2. An objection has been filed by the respondent under section 561 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not pressed and is dismissed with costs.