Saikia, J. : - This defendant's first appeal is from the judgm­ent and decree of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2, Gauhati decreeing the suit. The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 20/76 for declaration of title and for confirmation of poss­ession of the suit land measuring 5 Bighas which he claimed to have purchased on 22.12.56 for Rs 40,000/-and obtained possess­ion and mutation thereof. The defendant, however, got her name also recorded in the patta, as per order of the AASO dated 16.6.66 which clouded the plaintiff's title where for he filed the suit which was resisted by the defendant sating, inter alia, that she had been is possession of 2 Kathas 10 Lechas of the suit land deriving title thereto. 2. The learned trial court framed 7 (seven) issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW. 1 while the defendant exami­ned herself as DW. 1. The learned trial court found, inter alia, that the suit was maintainable; that there was cause of action; the suit was not bad for defect of parties; it was not barred by Section 154 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation; and that the plaintiff alone has got right, title and interest and also possession over the estire 5 Bighas of the suit land in Dag No. 571 of Patta No. 294 at village Ulubariagaon of Ulubari mouza. While discussing issue No. 7, namely, to what relief, if any, the parties were entitled, the court observed that the defendant had produced one certified copy of an order pas­sed in Money Suit No. 57/67 in the court of the Assistant District Judge No. 1 of Gauhati showing sale of the entire 5 Bighas of land of the suit Patta No. 294, Dag No. 571 excl­uding an area of 2 Kathas 4 Lechas stated to be under poss­ession of the defendant in an auction sale on 23.7.73 in exec­ution of a decree in the above noted suit. It was not known whether the plaintiff had got the sale set aside; but as the plaintiff had title over the land, he was held to be entitled to declaration of his title over the land of the suit patta and he would be entitled to get the name of the defendant removed from the patta in case he got the auction sale set aside. The suit was accordingly decreed subject to the above condition. 3. Mr. The suit was accordingly decreed subject to the above condition. 3. Mr. S. K Sen, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submits that the trial court erred in passing a condit­ional decree without knowing the real facts about the court sak and the plaintiff having been divested of his title over the entire suit land by the court sale he was not entitled to a decree and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Mr. P. N. Goswami, the learned counsel for the plain­tiff-respondent submits that the defendant did not raise the question of court sale in her written statement and no evidence was led to that effect. Only at the hearing a certified copy of an order passed in Money Suit No. 57/67 was produced which could not stand on the way of the court decreeing the suit. If the purchaser by court sale derived any title thereby it would be open for the purchaser to effectuate his title by following the prescribed law and procedure and the decree would not be infirm on that ground. 5. Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing for the purchaser in court sale submits that M/s Himatsingka Motor Works Limited filed a petition under Order 22 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the CPC for being impleaded as a party respondent in this First Appeal and after hearing the parties by order dated 21-8-81 in Misc. Case No. 7/81 the purchaser has been allowed to intervene in this appeal. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submits that the trial court ought to have ascer­tained the correct position of the court sale and its effect on title of the plaintiff over the suit land before passing the impu­gned decree. 6. Mr. Goswami does not dispute the factum of court sale but submits that without any pleadings or prayer for amend­ment thereof the intervening respondent has no right to impugn the decree; and that the purchaser can enforce his right against the plaintiff according to law. He, however, does not deny the institution of Money Suit No. 57/67. From the records it appears that the court sale was held on 23.7.76 sell­ing the entire 5 Bighas of suit land excluding 2 Kathas 4 Lechas stated to have been in possession of the defendant. The records also contain the corresponding sale certificate which of course does not bear any date. From the records it appears that the court sale was held on 23.7.76 sell­ing the entire 5 Bighas of suit land excluding 2 Kathas 4 Lechas stated to have been in possession of the defendant. The records also contain the corresponding sale certificate which of course does not bear any date. Under Order 21 Rule 92 where no application is made under Rule 89, Rule 90 or Rule 91, or where such application is made and disallowed, the court shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. Under Order 21 Rule 94 where a sale of immovable property has become absolute, the court shall grant a certificate specifying the property sold and the name of the person who at the time of sale is declared to be the purchaser. Such certificate shall bear date the day on which the sale became absolute Rule 94 is mandatory and after the sale of immovable property has become absolute, the court shall grant a sale certificate to the purchaser of the pro­perty. In granting a sale certificate the court is not to deter­mine what property is to pass by sale but merely to record the already accomplished fact of transaction that has taken place and to state what has been sold. A purchaser at auction sale takes the property subject to all the defects of title and the doctrine of caveat emptor (let the purchaser beware) applies to such purchaser as was held in Ahmedabad Municipality vs. Haji Abdul, AIR 1971 SC 1201 . There is no implied covenant of title by the vendor in a court sale. As was held in S. M. Jakati vs. S. M. Borkar, AIR 1959 SC 282 what passes to the auction purchaser is a question of fact in each case dependent upon what was the estate put up for sale, what the court intended to sell and what the purchaser intended to buy and did buy -and what he paid for. However, after the sale he has a substantial interest in the property sold, the nature and extent of property that devolved on M/s Himatsingka Motor Works Ltd, will, therefore, depend on the facts of the case. Without ascer­taining those facts any declaration of title in respect of the same immovable property will not consequently be in accor­dance with law. 7. However, after the sale he has a substantial interest in the property sold, the nature and extent of property that devolved on M/s Himatsingka Motor Works Ltd, will, therefore, depend on the facts of the case. Without ascer­taining those facts any declaration of title in respect of the same immovable property will not consequently be in accor­dance with law. 7. As regards the procedure in case of such purchase du­ring pendency of the suit Order 22 Rule 10 (i) provider that : "In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved." It was observed in Rikhu Dev vs. Som Dass, AIR 1975 SC 2159 that Order 22 Rule 10 is based on the principle that the trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter of the suit has devo­lved upon another during the pendency of the suit but that suit may be continued against the person acquiring the interest with the leave of the court. This rule applies in all cases of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest other than those covered by the preceding rules of Order 22 and it is a residuary rule. Creation or devolution of interest at a court sale will be covered by this rule. It guards against the danger that the original plaintiff being no longer interested in the pro­ceeding may not vigorously prosecute them or even collude with the adversary. It merely provides for substitution of a new party and not the addition of a new party. There is no aba­tement under this rule. In S. M. Saila Bala Dassi vs. S. M. Nirmala Sundari Dassi, AIR 1958 SC 394 it was held that u/s 146 of the CPC save as otherwise provided by the CPC or by any law for the time being in force where any preceding may be taken or application made by or against any person then the proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by or against any person claiming under him. It was held in S.V. Sitaramaswamy vs. Dulla Lakshmi Narasamma, AIR 1919 Madras 755 that an appeal is a proceeding for the purpose of this section and that the expression "claiming under'' is wide energies to include cases of devolution and assignment mentioned in Order 22 Rule 10. Thus whoever is entitled to be but has not been brought on record under Order 22 Rule 10 in a pending suit or proceeding would be entitled to prefer an appeal against the decree or order passed therein if his assignor could have filed such an appeal there being no prohibition against it in court. In Gujarat State Transport Corporation vs. Valji Mulji, AIR 1980 SC 64 where the applications under Order 22 Rule 10 were made beyond the period of limitation under Order 22 Rule 4 presumably to avoid seeking condonation of delay for setting aside abasement to bring the person on record on whom the interest devolved pending the appeal the Supreme Court over­ruled the technical objection. In Sardar Govind Rao vs. Devi Sahai, AIR 1982 SC 989 where the suit property was sold in favour of decree-holder auction purchaser and the sale was con firmed and sale certificate granted, his application under Order 22 Rule 10 in another redemption suit where the auction pur­chaser did not acquire any equity of redemption the Supreme Court held that even if stricto sensu the application would not fall under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, yet section 146 of the CPC would certainly enable him (auction purchaser) to maintain the application under Order 22 Rule 10. This being the legal position of the purchaser at court sale the suit may proceed after be is impleaded. An appeal is a continuance of the suit and the purchaser having been impleaded in appeal he is a party to the suit itself. 8. As the trial court while passing the impugned decree declaring title was not specific about the effect of the court sale on the title of the plaintiff over the suit land and as a result the decree was made subject to the court sale, the same cannot be said to be in accordance with law and hence it is set aside and the suit is remanded to the trial court for dis­posal according to law after ascertaining the effect of the court sale on the relief prayed in the suit. We remand the case un­der Order 41 Rule 23A read with section 151 of the C. P. C. with the direction that the trial court shall give opportunities to the parties including the purchaser at court sale to bring into record their cases and to adduce evidence on the question of the nature and extent of the court sale and its effect on the title of the plaintiff over the suit land and on the reliefs prayed for in the suit. The parties shall appear before the trial court within one month from to-day to take necessary orders. We make, no order as to costs. Send down the records forthwith.