Judgment Das, J. 1. This is an application in revision by the decree-holder, and is directed against the order of the learned first Munsif of Patna, dated 18-5-1951, in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 28 of 1951. The only question for decision is if the learned Munsif was right in his view that Sec.170, Bihar Tenancy Act, was not bar to the application which the first opposite party filed, purporting to be an application under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C. 2. The material facts are the following. The petitioner brought a suit for rent in respect of the holding in question and obtained a decree. In execution of the decree, the holding was attached. The first opposite party then made an application purporting to be an application under Order 21, B. 58, Civil P. C., and the main ground of attack was that the petitioner decree-holder had sued a wrong person in his suit for arrears of rent. The first opposite party claimed that he had purchased the holding by a registered sale-deed, dated 10-6-1951, and that he had paid the landlords fee and the landlord knew of the purchase of the holding. 3. Before the learned Munsif the contention of the decree-holder petitioner was that Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C. did not apply and Sec.170, Bihar Tenancy Act was a complete bar to the maintainability of the application. The learned Munsif came to the finding that the decree which the present petitioner obtained against the judgment-debtors had the effect of a money decree inasmuch as the judgment-debtors had no interest in the land in suit. In that view of the matter the learned Munsif held that the first opposite party could maintain an application under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C. 4. The point which falls for decision in this case is concluded by several authorities of this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred "to the decision in -- Harihar Prasad V/s. Prasad Mahton, AIR 1950 Pat 565 (A). In that case a writ of attachment and sale proclamation were issued in execution of a decree for arrears of rent in respect of a holding. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred "to the decision in -- Harihar Prasad V/s. Prasad Mahton, AIR 1950 Pat 565 (A). In that case a writ of attachment and sale proclamation were issued in execution of a decree for arrears of rent in respect of a holding. A third party applied under Order 21, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure, for release of a portion of the holding purchased, by him from the tenants and contended that as he had not been impleaded in the rent suit, the decree for rent passed in favour of the landlords would have the effect of a money decree and hence he was entitled to have his claim adjudicated under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., and get a release of the portion purchased by him from attachment and sale. It was held that Sec.170 was a complete bar to the investigation of the claim set up by the third party. All the earlier decisions of this Court on the subject were reviewed by Rai J. who gave the leading judgment. Learned Counsel for the first opposite party has sought to distinguish this decision on the ground that in this case, the entire holding was purchased by his client. But the precise point which has arisen in this case was also considered in a large number of earlier decisions of this Court. Learned Counsel for the first opposite party has sought to distinguish this decision on the ground that in this case, the entire holding was purchased by his client. But the precise point which has arisen in this case was also considered in a large number of earlier decisions of this Court. In Chhater Kumari Debi V/s. Bhagwati Prasad, AIR 1937 Pat 278 (B), Khaja Mohamad Noor J. succinctly put the matter thus : "Generally speaking the question is this : if it can be shown that the decree was not a rent decree, a third party can file objections under Order 21, Rule 58; for instance, if it appears that the plaintiff is not the 16 annas landlord of the tenure or holding, or that the suit was in respect of a portion of a holding or tenure or that rent for two or more holdings or tenures had been claimed in one and the same suit, the claim is entertainable; but if the decree is a rent decree but against a wrong person, the claim is barred." The same view was also expressed in -- Deonandan Prasad V/s. Pirthi Narayan, AIR 1933 Pat 32 (C), where Dhavle J. expressed himself as follows : "The section (referring to Sec.170 of the Bihar Tenancy Act) pre-supposes a rent decree, and it has been repeatedly held that a claim may be made under Order 21, Rule 58, on the ground that the decree is not a decree of the kind pre-supposed in the section. Claims, for instance, have been allowed where it was shown that the subject-matter of the suit was not a tenure or holding, or that the decree was not a rent decree because "the landlord had brought his suit in respect of more than one tenure or holding, or not being the sale landlord of the tenure or holding, had failed to observe the special provisions of Sec.148A without which it was impossible for him to obtain a rent decree .... Judging from the order under revision, the claimant did not deny that the decree-holder was the sole landlord of the holding in suit or that arrears of rent were due in respect of it. Judging from the order under revision, the claimant did not deny that the decree-holder was the sole landlord of the holding in suit or that arrears of rent were due in respect of it. It has been contended that he was entitled to show that the decree under execution was not a rent decree, but it is plain that he was not entitled to show this by establishing that the decree was obtained against a wrong party." In the case under our consideration the position is exactly the same. The claimant did not deny that the decree-holder was the 16 annas landlord; nor was it denied that the suit was in respect of holding and arrears of rent were due in respect of it. The only ground on which the decree is attacked is the ground that the decree-holder landlord sued a wrong person. It has been repeatedly held in this Court that such a claim cannot be investigated, as Sec.170, Bihar Tenancy Act, would bar the investigation of such a claim. The true principle, I think, is that when the decree for arrears of rent is in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act, a third party cannot ask the executing court to go behind the decree and investigate a claim that the decree was obtained against a wrong person. If he is not bound by the decree, he has other remedies to vindicate his rights. 5. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has referred to two other decisions, -- Jagdishpur Zamindari Co. Ltd. V/s. Sitaram, AIR 1952 Pat 7 (D) and -- Md. Annas V/s. Qazim, AIR 1953 Pat 156 (E) . The first of the aforesaid two decisions is a Single Judge decision of Shearer J. That was a case where the land attached had ceased to constitute one occupancy holding and by reason. of the provisions contained in Sec.25A, Bihar Tenancy Act, constituted several holdings. In. these circumstances, it was held that the application by an objector under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., was maintainable. Shearer J. referred to the decision in AIR 1950 Pat 565 (A) and pointed out that that decision was not in point inasmuch as the land which was attached in the case, under consideration of Shearer J., had ceased to constitute one occupancy holding and,. therefore, the decree obtained by the landlord. Shearer J. referred to the decision in AIR 1950 Pat 565 (A) and pointed out that that decision was not in point inasmuch as the land which was attached in the case, under consideration of Shearer J., had ceased to constitute one occupancy holding and,. therefore, the decree obtained by the landlord. was not a decree for rent in accordance with, the provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act. His Lordship pointed out, however, that the decision in AIR 1933 Pat 32 (C) was approved and followed in AIR 1950 Pat 565 (A). The second decision to which learned Counsel for the opposite party has referred is a decision to which I was a party -- Mahomed Anas T. Qazim, AIR 1953 Pat 156 (E). That was a case in which it was held that a claim under o. 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., was maintainable when the decree sought to be executed was a decree for arrears of rent obtained by a co-sharer landlord without impleading in the suit his other co-sharers. The finding of fact arrived at in that case was that the decree was obtained by the six annas landlords without impleading the other co-sharers. In those circumstances it was held that a claim under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., was maintainable. A number of earlier decisions of the Court on the point were examined and the decisions in AIR 1937. Pat 278 (B) and AIR 1933 Pat 32 (C) were approved. 6. It would thus appear that the point under consideration in the present case is completely covered by several authorities of this Court in which it has been uniformly held that the investigation of a claim on an application in which the ground of attack is that the decree for rent, which is otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act, was obtained against a wrong person is barred under the provisions of Sec.170 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The learned Munsif wrongly assumed jurisdiction in investigating such a claim. 7. The result, therefore, is that the application succeeds, the order of the learned Munsif is set aside and it must be held that investigation of the claim of the opposite party is barred under the provisions of Sec.170, Bihar Tenancy Act. The petitioner decree-holder is entitled to his costs throughout. Hearing fee Rs. 32/- only. 7. The result, therefore, is that the application succeeds, the order of the learned Munsif is set aside and it must be held that investigation of the claim of the opposite party is barred under the provisions of Sec.170, Bihar Tenancy Act. The petitioner decree-holder is entitled to his costs throughout. Hearing fee Rs. 32/- only. Imam, J. 8 I agree.