JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— A question under section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure is involved in this appeal. The facts are these:— On the 17th of December, 1887, the plaintiffs-respondents obtained a decree for sale upon a mortgage against the defendants and brought the property to sale and themselves purchased it on the 20th of June, 1891. In 1898, that is, seven years after the sale, they applied under the provisions of section 318 of the Code for possession, but their application was rejected, and on appeal to the High Court the decision of the Court below was upheld. Then, on the 18th of July, 1903, the present suit was instituted. 2. The Court below held that the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit, and that section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure offered no obstacle to its success. We are unable to agree in the view of the law taken by the Court below. We think, particularly in view of the later decisions, both of this and other High Courts, that section 244 does preclude the institution of a suit under circumstances similar to those in the present case. That section enacts that certain questions shall be determined by order of the Court executing a decree and not by a separate suit, and amongst other questions to be so determined, are questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed or their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree or stay of execution thereof. It was decided by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gulzari Lal v. Modho Ram, [1904] I.L.R., 26 All, 447. S.C. 1 A.L.J.R., 65. that an auction purchaser at a sale held in execution of a simple money decree against a judgment-debtor whose property had been ordered to be sold at the suit of mortgagees in a mortgage suit is a representative of the judgment-debtor, within the meaning of section 244, and that there is no distinction between the case of a purchaser who purchases by private agreement from a judgment-debtor whose property is the subject-matter of the suit for sale at the instance of a mortgagee, and that of a purchaser who purchases at a judicial sale in execution of a simple money decree against such judgment-debtor. It was further held that the term representative as used in section 244 of the Code when taken with reference to the judgment-debtor does not mean only his legal representatives, but means his representative in interest and includes the purchaser of his interest, who so far as such interest is concerned, is bound by the decree. One of us, took part in the hearing of this case, and from the judgments it appears that the matter was carefully considered. Our brother BANERJI was a party to that decision, and we may usefully quote his language in regard to the position of a decree-holder who has become a purchaser at an auction sale. He says in the course of bis judgment, “It seems to me that every purchaser of the judgment-debtor's interest, who is bound by the decree, is a representative of the judgment-debtor within the meaning of the section whether he is a purchaser under a private sale from the judgment-debtor or a purchaser at a compulsory sale held in execution of a decree obtained against the judgment-debtor. I can see no distinction in principle between the case of a purchaser under a private sale and that of an auction-purchaser, provided that the decree in execution can be enforced against him. In my judgment the word representative in section 244 means a person against whom a decree can be enforced either as the legal representative of the judgment-debtor or as his representative in interest,” and later on he says, “He, (that is the purchaser) is therefore in my opinion a representative of the judgment-debtors, mortgagors, within the meaning of section 244, and his suit has been rightly held to be barred by that section.” In view of this decision by a Full Bench it appears to us that the appeal must succeed. We may state, however, that we are supported in the view that we take of the section 244 by the decision of a Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Kattyat Paihumayi v. Raman Menon, [1902] I.L.R., 26 Mad., 740. and also by a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Madhu Sudan Das v. Gobinda Priya Chaudhurani, [1899] I.L.R., 27 Cal., 34.. and also by a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Madhu Sudan Das v. Gobinda Priya Chaudhurani, [1899] I.L.R., 27 Cal., 34.. For these reasons we allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of the lower Courts and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit with costs in all Courts, including fees in this Court on the higher scale.