JUDGMENT Piggott, J.
1. The facts essential to the disposal of this appeal admit of being briefly stated. Certain property was sold at auction under a decree of the Court and was purchased ostensibly by three persons, namely, Jagan Nath Prasad and his two sons. The sons were minors at the time, and, no doubt, Jagan Nath conducted the transaction on their behalf. But he put them forward along with himself as ostensible purchasers and was careful to obtain a sale certificate in favour of all three. One Kali Charan subsequently had occasion to claim, as against Jagan Nath, a portion of the property of which Jagan Nath purported to be in possession under this sale certificate. He brought a suit impleading Jagan Nath alone as defendant and he won that suit. Dao Dayal, son of Jagan Nath, now once more claims this property from Kali Charan, basing his title on the sale certificate already referred to. The Courts below have held that the decision in the suit in which Kali Charan sued Jagan Nath operates as res judicata, and that the plaintiff is ther.eby debarred from maintaining the present suit. There is no finding that Kali Charan impleaded Jagan Nath in a representative capacity as the head of the family. The case seems to be that he impleaded Jagan Nath as the real purchaser at the auction sale. Jagan Nath, however, had a perfect right if he chose to acquire property for the benefit of his minor sons, and in the present case, it seems to me that Dao Dayal is not claiming under Jagan Nath within the meaning of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but is seeking to enforce a right claimed by him as one of the purchasers at the auction sale. I, therefore, set aside the finding of the lower Appellate Court on the issue of res judicata, and, as no other issue was heard or determined by that Court, I remand the case under Order XLI, Rule 23, to the lower Appellate Court for decision on the merits. Costs will abide the event.