This appeal is on behalf of the defendant Lairik Tambi Manipurini against whom a decree for eviction has been passed on declara­tion of the plaintiffs' title, from an area of 3 kathas of land situated within dag No. 1490 of R. S. Patta No. 163 in Silchar town. The plain­tiffs' case was that Goaram and Dhiraj Rana who were heirs of Dharuk Ram mortgaged lands measuring 16 kathas 13 chataks covered by dags Nos. 3979, 4032 and 4038 in C. S. Patta No. 650 to one Kusum Kamini Dey on 23-8-15 and she sold her interest to Khelendra Singh the predecessor of the plaintiffs on 18-7-27. Khelendra instituted Title Suit No. 1476 of 1927 for enforcing the mortgage decree and in execu­tion of that decree he purchased on 4-4-38 the lands covered by dag No. 1490 of R. S. Patta No. 163 covering an area of 19 kathas 14 chataks. The plaintiffs' case was that in the course of resettle­ment, the original C. S. Patta No. 650 became R. S.. Patta No. 163 and there being some mistake in the measurement of the area in the cadestral survey of the dags in Patta No. 650, it was shown in dag No. 1490 as 19 kathas 14 chataks in area in the resettlement in R. S. Patta No. 163. The plaintiffs' case is that at the time of tak­ing symbolical possession on 11-8-38 the defen­dant Lairik Tambi Manipurini and her husband Mularam were found in possession of the land, but since they agreed to execute a kabuliyat in favour of Khelendra Singh he did not eject them at the time, but subsequently they did not only vacate the land but Lairik Tambi obtained mutation with resnect to 3 kathas of land which forms the sub­ject-matter of the suit. (2) The case of the defendant was that this 3 kathas which she occupied was included by mis­take in R. S. Patta No. 163 in dag No. 1490 and that the plaintiffs had acquired no title to it. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit on 23-12-47 and on appeal the matter was sent back to the trial Court with an additional issue framed to the effect that: Whether the land in dispute was included in the land mortgaged by Goaram and Dhiraj Rana. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit on 23-12-47 and on appeal the matter was sent back to the trial Court with an additional issue framed to the effect that: Whether the land in dispute was included in the land mortgaged by Goaram and Dhiraj Rana. On remand, a Pleader Commis­sioner was appointed to ascertain the land of ori­ginal C. S. Patta No. 650 and the area of R. S. Patta No. 163 and to show the positions of the lands by a sketch map. The sketch map was accordingly submitted and it showed that the disputed lands fell with­in the limits of C. S. Dag Nos. 3979 and 4032, and they were included in R. S. Dag No. 1490. This was supported even by the witnesses for the defendant and therefore the learned Munsiff found on remand that the land in suit was included in the land which was the subject-matter of mort­gage and was finally purchased by Khelendra Singh the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. The learned Munsiff held that the plaintiffs were therefore entitled to a declaration of this title with respect to the land in suit, but he held that S. 47 of the Civil P. C. was a bar to the in­stitution of the present suit against the defen­dant who was a transferee from Mularam who again was a transferee from one of the mortgagors Dhiraj Rana, I had omitted to mention that the defendant claimed title to the property by virtue of her purchase from her husband Mularam on 5-5-38 and Mularam had purchased 3 kathas of land from Dhiraj Rana on 13-12-33 on the basis of which the defendant obtained mutation in the revenue Court. (3) On an appeal by the plaintiffs the learn­ed Subordinate Judge held that S. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code had no application to the facts and circumstances of the case and he held that a suit would be competent for declaration of title and delivery of possession by the plaintiffs with­in twelve years of the date of symbolical posses­sion and the present suit being brought with­in that period the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for possession over and above the declara­tion of title. He accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs' suit in full. The pre­sent appeal is against this decree. He accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs' suit in full. The pre­sent appeal is against this decree. (4) The only point for consideration, there­fore, is whether the present suit is barred by S. 47 of the Civil P. C. (5) The learned Advocate for the appellant has argued before me that the proper relief could be obtained by an application under O. 21, R. 95 of the C. P. Code, since the defendant was a transferee from one of the original judgment-debtors and no suit would be competent on be­half of the decree-holder auction purchaser be­cause of the bar under S. 47, C. P. Code. As is well-known, S. 47, C. P. C.' relates to 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. It has been contended on behalf of the plain­tiff-respondents that once possession was taken in execution of the decree, though it was symbolical possession, no further application under O. 41, R. 95 of the C. P. Code Would He, but a proper re­medy could be obtained only by instituting a suit in a proper forum. It is not denied that symbo­lical possession was taken on behalf of the de­cree-holder auction purchaser in the mortgage suit on 11-8-38. (6) Mr. Dam for the appellant has placed be­fore me the case of Debi Prosad v. Satish Chandra AIR 1944 Cal 328 (1) (A). In this decision the learned Judges followed the Full Bench decision in the case of Kailash Chandra v. Gopal Chandra, ILR 53 Cal 781: AIR 1926 Cal 798 (B). What was really held in the case of Kailash Chandra Ta-rafdar v. Gopal Chandra Poddar, (B) was that an order passed on an application under O. 41, R. 95 by the decree-holder auction purchaser is within S. 47, C. P. Code, and is appealable as such. It is contended to be an authority on the point that the decree-holder auction purchaser continues to be a party to the suit till possession is delivered in execution of the decree and a fur­ther suit is barred. In the case of Debiprosad v. Satish Chandra, (A) it has been held that the decree-holder landlord purchasing property in execution has to ob­tain the remedy by way of an application and his suit for possession is barred. In the case of Debiprosad v. Satish Chandra, (A) it has been held that the decree-holder landlord purchasing property in execution has to ob­tain the remedy by way of an application and his suit for possession is barred. The learned Judges have shown no other reason except that they have followed the decision in the case of Kailash Chandra Tarafdar (B) as I have men­tioned above. But the case of Kailash Chandra, (B) is not really a case on the point since it has been held in numerous cases that once a decree-holder auction purchaser, obtains symbolical pos­session that possession is construed to be tant­amount to khas possession as against the judgment-debtor or his representative in interest. The earliest case cited on the point is Juggobundhu Mukerjee v. Ramchunder Bysack, ILR 5 Cal 584 (C), which also was a Full Bench deci­sion of the Calcutta High Court. It was held in this case that delivery of possession going through the process prescribed by S_ 224 of Act VIII of 1859 (which possibly corresponds to O. 21, B. 6 of the C. P. Code of 1908) is the only way in which the decree of the Court awarding posses­sion to the plaintiff can be enforced; and as, in contemplation of law, both parties must be con­sidered as being present at the time when the delivery is made, such delivery must, as against the defendant, be deemed equivalent to actual possession. As against third parties such symbolical pos­session is of no avail, because they are not parties to the proceedings. This decision finds support in the Privy Council decision of Radha 'Krishna Chanderji v. Ram Bahadur, AIR 1917 PC 197 (2) (D). Surendra Prasad Lahiri v. Govinda Das, 48 Cal WN 15 (E) is a decision of Khundkar J. who, however, based the decision on earlier Calcutta cases and his Lordship held to the effect that after delivery of symbolical possession has been ob­tained against the judgment debtor. any further Question regarding actual possession or disposses­sion is not a question relating to execution, satis­faction or discharge of the decree within the meaning of S. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, and as such, a suit by the decree-holder to recover possession is maintainable and is the proper re­medy, since he could not proceed by way of a second application in execution. This decision is based primarily on the cases of Jagadish Nath v Nafar Chandra, 35 Cal WN 12: (AIR 1931 Cal 427) (F) and Girija Kanta v. Mohim Chandra, 20 Cal WN 675: (AIR 1916 Cal 170) (G). In Subbaraya Goundan v. Samiappa Goundan, AIR 1946 Mad 529 (H), the identical point came up for consideration. There it was held by the learned Judges that the question whe­ther a separate suit was barred by S. 47, C. P. Code depended upon whether possession was taken in execution department and not on the question of lis pendens, because the lower appellate Court decided on the question of lis pendens. Accord­ing to their Lordships, the question was really concluded toy the decision of the Judicial Com­mittee in AIR 1917 PC 197 (2) (D) which I have al­ready mentioned.. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the "case I am inclined to hold that the suit was not barred by S. 47 of the O. P. Code as contend­ed by the learned advocate for the appellant since symbolical possession was taken which in law amounted to actual possession as against the judgment-debtor or his representative in interest. In this view, the learned Subordinate Judge was correct in allowing the appeal as he has done and I accordingly affirm the same. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. R.G.D., Appeal dismissed.