JUDGMENT : Richards, J.:— In this suit the plaintiff seeks to have it declared that he is the auction purchaser of a certain grove and he also claims possession. He says that in certain proceedings against a man of the name of Rajkumar certain property was taken in execution and sold, that this property included the grove in question, and that he obtained a sale certificate for the property. After the decree had been obtained against Rajkumar the latter-died, and in the execution proceedings, Rani Indomati, his widow, was brought on the record as his representative. Rani Indomati raised no objection either under section 244 or under section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Actual possession of the property sold, save the grove now in dispute, was obtained by the plaintiff and the present suit was instituted in respect of the grove only. Rani Indomati now defends the suit and alleges that prior to the year 1898, she had become entitled to the grove in question by purchase made with her own money and that by a registered deed she had duly dedicated the property for certain religious purposes. The plaintiff replies to this defence by stating that she was the representative of the deceased Rajkumar and was therefore bound to raise an objection in the previous proceedings under section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that she cannot now be heard in making this defence. It is then urged on behalf of Rani Indomati that in as much as the property in question was in her possession, not as judgment-debtor or as the representative of the judgment-debtor, but as trustee for the religious purpose, she was not bound to make this objection in the previous proceedings, that it could not have been decided under section 244 if she had done so, and accordingly she is now entitled to make the defence set forth in her written statement. The court below has not gone into the question as to whether or not there was a real and genuine sale to Rani Indomati, and a subsequent dedication by her. I do not wish to express any opinion one way or another upon these questions which will have to be decided when the case goes back. The court below has not gone into the question as to whether or not there was a real and genuine sale to Rani Indomati, and a subsequent dedication by her. I do not wish to express any opinion one way or another upon these questions which will have to be decided when the case goes back. The appellant relies upon the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Seth Ghand Mal v. Durga Dei, [1889] I.L.R., 12 All., 313. In that case the majority of the court were of opinion that where a person who was brought on the record as the representative, of a deceased judgment-debtor claimed the property not as his own but as trustee for some one else, he is entitled to have the question, as to whether or not his claim is well founded, tried in a separate suit. It seems clear that if Rani Indomati had raised the objection that she was a mere trustee, she would have raised the question under section 278 and not under section 244. If her objection had been overruled, she would have been entitled to have brought a separate suit. It is of course to be remembered that she had raised no such objection either under section 278 or section 244. But I can see nothing which renders it obligatory upon a person having a claim which can be raised under section 278 to raise it at the period contemplated by that section. In a recent case, Ali Sajjad v. Bhajan Singh, [1906] 3 A.L.J.R., 370 a preliminary objection was taken that where an objection to an attachment was taken by the legal representative of a deceased debtor claiming the property for trust as a trustee under the provisions of section 278, no appeal lay. It appears to have been conceded that if the objection was under section 244 or could have been dealt with under that section an appeal would have lain. The court held that the preliminary objection must prevail and that the objection could only have been brought under section 278. The court cites with approval the Full Bench decision which I have just referred to. The court held that the preliminary objection must prevail and that the objection could only have been brought under section 278. The court cites with approval the Full Bench decision which I have just referred to. The only difference between that case and the present is that Rani Indomati did not prefer any claim or make any objection to the attachment of the grove when it was attached with other property in the previous litigation. Under these circumstances I allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of both the courts below, and remand the suit through the lower appellate court to the court of first instance with directions to re-admit the suit under its original number in the register and proceed to determine the suit on the merits having regard to the observations made above. Costs will abide the event.