( 56 )
1908. Reuia Mahion v. Ram Kisfun Singh *)—of convenience, but oneFebruary 28. resting on solid grounds of principle and equity. Further, noWood order confirming the sale could issue under section 288 of the CivilRbntonJ. Procedure Code, because the state of facts contemplated by theprohibitory proviso to that section had arisen—viz., “ the judgmentdebt was satisfied ”—at the time that the writ' of execution issued.Mr. de Sampayo argued that the payment made by the assignee inthe present case was one made in satisfaction not of the decree, butof the consideration for the assignment, and that, therefore, section283 did not stand in the way of a confirmation of the sale. Insupport of this contention he referred us to the case of AbulMansoor v. Abdool Hamid.2 In that case M had obtained adecree against A and two others. M sold the decree to S, whoexecuted it against A. B purchased. A sued for a declaration,and the Court found that S was only a purchaser benami for A’stwo joint debtors, and A sued B for the recovery of the property.It was held that the purchase qf the decree by A’s joint debtors,although it satisfied the judgment debt, did not affect the decree,that the sale under the decree was binding on A, and that his suitwas therefore a “ suit to set aside a decree ” within the meaning ofthe Limitation Act, 1871 (Act IX. of 1871), schedule II., clause 14,and as such, not having been brought within one year, was barred.I do not think that this decision can help the appellant in any way,out rather the reverse. The. proviso to section 283 of the CivilProcedure Code speaks of the satisfaction, not of the “ decree,”but of ‘‘ the judgment debt,” which was clearly satisfied, in thepresent case, at the critical point of time, by payment. I wouldaffirm the judgment under review with costs.
Judgment in appeal upheld.
> (1886) I. L. R. 14 Cal. U.
2 (1876) I. L. R. 2 Cal. 98..