1. In our opinion the Court has taken an erroneous view of the law. All that P. 260 declares is that 'any suit brought against the certified purchaser on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of another person not the certified purchaser, though by agreement the name of the certified purchaser was used shall be dismissed.' The law will not, therefore, in strictness apply to this case, where it is the certified purchaser who is suing to enforce his alleged purchase, and where the objection is taken by the defendant who is in possession. The section should be construed literally and applied strictly. The Court will not apply Section 2fi0 so as to assist the certified purchaser to enforce his claim against the party in possession, by relieving him from the necessity of showing the justice of his claim or excluding inquiry as to its fraudulent character. This view of the law is supported by the Privy Council rulings in Buhuns Koonwur v. Lalla Buhoree Lall 10 B.L.R. 159 : S.C. 18 W.R. 157, and in Lokhee Narain Roy v. Kalypuddo Bandopadhya L.R. 2 Ind. App. P.C : 154; see also Mirza Khyrat Ali v. Mirza Syfoollah Khan 8 W.R. 130; and Muthoora Nath Boss v. Rai Komul Dossee 24 W.R. 278. We remand the case for trial under Section 354, Act VIII of 1859, of the issue whether plaintiff' or defendant was the real purchaser at auction of the property in suit.