Tudball and Walsh, JJ.
1. The finding on the issues remitted by us in our order of the 29th of May, 1915, is in favour of the appellant. We must now take the facts to be substantially these: Certain property was put up for sale in the execution of a decree by one Bansidhar, who was a transferee of that decree. As regards the particular property in question in this appeal, it was purchased at auction by the appellant Lala Piari Lal. On the findings now returned, which have not been seriously assailed in argument before us, and which we must accept upon the evidence, we hold that Lala Piari Lal was a bond fide auction-purchaser for value. The decree under execution at the instance of Bansidhar has been reversed on appeal, and the question before us is whether the judgement-debtors can obtain restitution, not merely as against Bansidhar himself (this they have already obtained) but against Lala Piari Lal. We have been referred to a large number of authorities on this point, but itreally seems unnecessary to go beyond the two decisions of their Lordships of the Privy Council, in Rewa Mahton v. Ram Kishen Singh (1888) I.L.R. 14 Calc. 18 and Zain-ul-abdin Khan v. Muhammad Asghar Ali Khan (1887) I.L.R. 10 All. 166. The precise question now in issue was argued out before a Bench of the Judicial Commissioner's Court at Lucknow of which one of us was at the time a member. The case is that of Mazhat-ud-daula Abbas Husain Khan v. Dilband Begam (1913) 16 Oudh. Cases 225. Numerous authorities are there referred to, and the conclusion arrived at is that restitution cannot be obtained under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against a bond fide purchaser for value at an auction sale held by a court which had jurisdiction to hold the same. This appeal must therefore succeed. We set aside the order of the court below and direct that the appellant be restored to possession of the property which has been made over to the respondents under the order appealed from. The appellant will get her costs in; both courts.