John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.
1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore dismissing the plaintiff's suit, which was brought to have it declared that certain proceedings, relating lo a compromise and the confirmation of the sale of property known as mauza Bahripur, were collusive and invalid, and were taken without any authority on the part of the plaintiff, and that the sale should be set aside. The defendants in the suit are decree-holders, who obtained a simple money decree against the plaintiff, and in execution attached and purchased at an auction the plaintiff's interest in the lands in question. An objection to the sale was raised by the judgment-debtor on the grounds of irregularity in the conduct and publication of the sale. Whilst these proceedings were pending, the judgment-debtor's son, Bijai Singh, is alleged to have entered into a compromise with the decree-holders whereby it was arranged that the decree holders should take the village in question in full satisfaction of their debts instead of at the sale price, and that the sale should be confirmed on these terms. The amount of the decree was Rs. 12,755, and the sale price was Rs. 9,500. By the compromise the present plaintiff obtained a considerable advantage. He, notwithstanding this, alleges that his son had no authority to enter into the compromise, and seeks, in consequence, to have the sale set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and we are of opinion that his view on this point is correct. The question which has arisen between the parties is clearly one relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree, and being such, it is not open to the plaintiff to take proceedings by an independent suit. This was laid down in the case of Prosunno Coomar Sanyal v. Kasi Das Sanyal (1802) L.R. 19 I.A. 166 by their Lordships of the Privy Council; and, as their Lordships say, 'is a view to be commended, inasmuch as it is of the utmost importance that all objections to execution sales should be disposed of as cheaply and as speedily as possible.' For these reasons we are of opinion that the suit cannot be maintained, and that the decree of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the suit must be upheld. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal with costs.