JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. A preliminary objection has been raised to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that no appeal, under the circumstances, lies to this Court. It appears that in execution of a decree certain property was attached. An objection was filed to the attachment by the judgment-debtor, who was placed upon the record as the legal representative of the deceased debtor, the allegation of the objector being that the property sought to be sold in execution of the decree was not the property of the judgment-debtor, but was property in his possession as a trustee for others. This objection was considered and overruled. The present appeal has been preferred against the decision of the Court below. We think that in view of the provisions of sections 278, 280 and 281 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the preliminary objection should prevail. The appellant preferred an objection to the sale relying upon the provisions of section “280, which enables a person to set up the claim that though property, which has been attached is in the possession of the judgment-debtor, yet it is not in his possession on his own account but on account of or in trust for some other person. The Court below disallowed the claim so preferred. Under these circumstances the obvious course for the appellant to have taken is that prescribed by section 283, that is, institute a suit to establish the right, which he claimed to the property in dispute. The question was not one between the decree-holders and the judgment-debtor or his representative but between the decree-holders and a person, who set up the right of third parties. The question appears to us to be Concluded by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Seth Chand Mal v. Durga Dei, [1889] I.L.R., 12 All, 313. In that case the law upon the subject was fully considered and it was held that in a case such as the present, the proper course is to institute a suit and that it is not open to parties to have the question determined under the provisions of section 244 of the Code. We therefore allow the prelimiuary objection and dismiss the appeal with costs, including fees in this Court on the higher scale.