Short Note : Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are these: Two persons viz., Kanhaiyalal and Ramchandra had obtained a decree for the sale of the suit-house in a suit based on a deed of mortgage against Nathulal, Bhagirath and Gopal, sons of the deceased- Mortgagor - Chainsingh. In execution of this mortgage-decree, the decree-holders put the mortgaged property to sale which was purchased by Hiralal, since deceased and now represented by the appellants, his legal representatives. After purchasing the property, an order for delivery of possession was passed in favour of the auction-purchaser. The respondent-Radhabai, wife of Chainsingh, submitted an application under Order 21 rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') claiming that the property purchased by the auction-purchaser was her property which she got under a will executed by her husband. This application was allowed and it was declared that Radhabai was the exclusive owner of the property purchased by the auction-purchaser. Consequent upon this order being passed by the executing Court, the legal representatives of the auction-purchaser Hiralal filed an appeal as in their opinion the order passed by the executing Court in favour of Radhabai for restoration of possession was erroneous. In the meantime, the legal representatives of Hiralal, the auction-purchaser in the execution proceedings filed the Civil Suit No. 26-A of 1971 in the Court of Fifth Civil Judge, Class I, Indore. Prior to that Radhabai also instituted a suit (Civil Suit No. 37 of 1960) in the Court of First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore for declaration of her right as the exclusive owner of the property sold in the execution proceedings. This suit was heard and decided finally by the Court and it was held that though Radhabai did not acquire the rights of an exclusive owner under the will propounded by her but she was entitled to 1/4 share only in the suit property. The judgment given by this Court in an appeal in the suit instituted by Radhabai has become final as no further appeal is said to have been filed against the decree passed by this Court in appeal. The appeal filed by the legal representatives of Hiralal against the order passed in execution proceedings was heard by the District Court, but by that time the suit instituted by the legal representatives had not been decided. The appeal filed by the legal representatives of Hiralal against the order passed in execution proceedings was heard by the District Court, but by that time the suit instituted by the legal representatives had not been decided. The learned Additional Judge, therefore, took the view that as Radhabai had been declared to be the holder of 1/4 share in the suit property, the remedy to the auction-purchaser was only by way of suit for partition and Radhabai, in whose favour an order for restoration of possession was passed under Order 21, rule 103 of the Code, could not be dispossessed from the house purchased by Hiralal. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. Held : From the provisions of Order 21, rule 103 of the Code, it is clear that any order passed under Order 21, rule 101 of the Code shall be subject to the result of any suit that may be instituted by any party, other than the judgment-debtor to the proceedings for sale and delivery of possession. This suit has been decided and the findings on the relevant issue raised therein have been narrated above. It was stated that in the execution proceedings, possession of the whole house was delivered to the auction purchaser and the auction-purchaser through his legal representatives is still in possession of the disputed house. The question is whether in the light of the decision given in the suit instituted under Order 21, rule 103 of the Code, Radhabai who has been declared to be the holder of 1/4 share in the suit property is entitled to an order for being restored to possession and the auction purchaser should be directed to seek remedy by instituting a suit for partition. In Chhaganlal v. Chiman, 1961 JLJ SN 265, it has been clearly held that there can be no order for possession being delivered to the auction-purchaser in such cases and that in such cases the only remedy to an auction purchaser is to institute a suit for partition. No doubt, in the findings recorded on issue No.4, it has been held that she is entitled to possession of only 1/4 share and the possession of the whole house cannot be handed over to her. No appeal appears to have been filed against the decree passed in the aforesaid suit. No doubt, in the findings recorded on issue No.4, it has been held that she is entitled to possession of only 1/4 share and the possession of the whole house cannot be handed over to her. No appeal appears to have been filed against the decree passed in the aforesaid suit. How and in what manner possession of undefined and unspecified 1/4 share can be delivered to Radhabai, is not clear. However, it is evident that she has been held entitled to retain possession of the house purchased by the auction-purchaser to the extent of her 1/4 share. There is no clear finding that such possession shall be joint with the auction purchaser. In these circumstances, the only manner in which the decision in that suit (Civil Suit No. 26-A of 1971) can be construed is that Radhabai has to be restored possession which presently is with the legal representatives of Hiralal. If the legal representatives of the auction-purchaser so want then it will be for them to seek partition and claim separate possession of the 3/4 share in the suit house of which only they have been held as rightful purchasers. So far as the claim of the auction-purchaser for exclusive possession of the suit house is concerned, it cannot be maintained. If the parties are not agreeable to keep possession in the manner in which their shares have been declared, then the possession of the suit property has to be delivered to Radhabai and the appellants will have to seek remedy by instituting suit for partition. In any event, Radhabai cannot be kept out of possession as possession was taken by the auction-purchaser from her and she has been declared entitled to possession of 1/4 share in that house. AIR 1953 SC 437 & AIR 1966 SC 470 referred to. Appeal dismissed.