JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of an application for setting aside an auction sale of an occupancy holding, both under sec. 311 and sec. 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was presented by a person who had previous to the Bald sale obtained a decree on a mortgage of the said holding, against the judgment-debtor. So far, however, as the application under sec. 311, C. C. P., is concerned, it has been dismissed for reasons which the Appellant is not In a position now to question; but It appears that the District Judge has declined to go into any question raised under sec. 244 of the Code upon the ground that the applicant is not a representative of the judgment-debtor within the meaning of that section. But as already stated, the applicant obtained a mortgage of this property from the tenant and, having regard to the definition of the word 'mortgage' as given in sec. 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, there can, we think, be no doubt that, under his mortgage, the applicant acquired an interest in the property which has been sold, the mortgage being regarded as the transfer of such interest. In this view of the matter, it would be difficult to say, there being a mortgage in his favour, that he is not a representative of the judgment-debtor. The question who may be regarded as a representative within the meaning of sec. 244 of the Code has been discussed in certain oases, the leading case being that of Ishan Chunder Sirkar v. Beni Madhub Sirkar I. L. R. 24 Cal. 62 (1896) decided by a Full Bench of this Court. It has there been laid down that " the term representative," as used in sec. 244 of the Civil Procedure Code, when taken with reference to the judgment-debtor, does not mean only his legal representative, that is, his heir, executor or administrator, but it means his representative in interest and includes a purchaser of his interest who, so far as such interest is concerned, is bound by the decree. The principle underlying this case was considered in the case of Azgar Ali v. Asaboddin Kazi 9 C. W. N. 134 (1904); and the learned Judge who decided that case, with reference to the case of Ishan Chunder Sirkar v. Beni Madhub Sirkar I. L. R. 24 Cal. The principle underlying this case was considered in the case of Azgar Ali v. Asaboddin Kazi 9 C. W. N. 134 (1904); and the learned Judge who decided that case, with reference to the case of Ishan Chunder Sirkar v. Beni Madhub Sirkar I. L. R. 24 Cal. 62 (1896), made the following observations :-" The essence of the principle which underlies the decision in the Full Bench case is that a transferee of the interest of the judgment debtor in order that he may be clothed with the legal character of his representation must be bound by the decree. The essential criterion is, not the point of time at which he acquired his Interest but the nature of the decree and the nature of his purchase. If as purchaser he is bound by the decree and consequently affected by the sale, he must be regarded as the representative." Applying these observations to the case before us-observations which we see no reason to dissent from-the applicant in this case is a person, who, if the sale is not allowed to be challenged, would be bound by the decree, and would be materially affected by the sale, because the sale is a sale which would convey to the purchaser the entire holding, and not simply the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor. In this view of the matter, we are of opinion that the applicant would be a representative within the meaning of sec. 244, C. C. P., provided, of course, that the interest which the judgment-debtor possessed was such as could, under the law, custom or local usage, be transferred to another. As already mentioned, the applicant claims an interest in this property under his mortgage; and one of the questions that arises in this case is whether the judgment-debtor, the raiyat, was entitled to transfer his interest or any portion of his interest to a third party, such as the applicant is. If such interest was not transferable either according to law, custom or local usage, then we are of opinion that the applicant could not rightly be regarded as a representative in the proper sense of the word, and as falling within the purview of sec. If such interest was not transferable either according to law, custom or local usage, then we are of opinion that the applicant could not rightly be regarded as a representative in the proper sense of the word, and as falling within the purview of sec. 244, C. C. P. While, therefore, we dissent from the view that has been adopted by the District Judge, we are constrained to remand the case to the lower Appellate Court with a view that the question whether the holding was transferable according to custom or local usage either by sale or mortgage be enquired into. If such question be found in favour of the applicant, then it will be the duty of the District Judge to go into the questions raised in his application under sec. 244 of the CPC and determine the case finally between the parties. Costs will abide the result.