1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. A shop and premises belonged to the firm of Thakur Dass and Dhani Ram. This shop and premises wore sold by the Court in execution of a decree on the 29th of June 1907 and purchased by Jaggi Lal. The sale was not confirmed until the 22nd of August 1908. Prior to the 22nd of August 1908, rents of tenants fell into arrears and in the aggregate a sum of Rs. 700 was due for such arrears on that date. In execution of a decree obtained against Thakur Dass and Dhani Ram, these arrears were sold on the 18th of December 1908 and were purchased by the plaintiff. He instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of these arrears. The defence set up by the defendants was that the plaintiff was not entitled to them but that the purchaser under the purchase of the 29th of June 1907 was so entitled.
2. Both the Courts below gave a decree to the plaintiff.
3. This second appeal was then preferred and the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that Jaggi Lal by virtue of his purchase became entitled to the rent as from the 29th of June 1907, the date of his purchase, notwithstanding that the sale to him was not confirmed until the 22nd of August 1908. We are unable to accede to this contention. The question is disposed of by 316 of the former Code of Civil Procedure which was in force at the time of the sales. That section provides for the granting by the Court of sale certificate and declares that so far as regards the parties to the suit and persons claiming through or under them, the title to the property sold shall vest in the purchaser from the date of such certificate and not before. We may here point out that the law has been modified by the present Code of Civil Procedure. Section 65 of the present Code provides that where immovable property is sold in execution of a decree and such sale has become absolute, the property shall be deemed to have vested in the purchaser from the time when the property was sold and not from the time when the sale becomes absolute. In view of the provisions of the former Code, to which we have referred, it appears to us that this appeal must fail. In the case of Amir Kazim v. Darbari Mal 24 A. 475 : (1902) A.W.N. 145, it was decided by a Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a member, that when immovable property is sold in execution of a decree, the title of the auction-purchaser to mesne profits or to possession does not accrue until the sale has been confirmed. In that case the Court followed the authority of several other cases; in one of which, Prem Chand Pal v. Parnima Dasi 15 C. 546, the contention was raised that though under Section 316 property does not vest in the purchaser until the date of the confirmation of the sale, yet this only applies as between the parties to the suit and persons claiming through or under them and does not apply to third parties.. This contention was in that case repelled and we think rightly so. For these reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale.