JUDGMENT John Stanley, C.J. and Knox, J.
1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal, on the ground that no appeal lies. The facts, so far as they are necessary for the objection, are as follows: Certain property had been put up for sale in execution of a decree--that property was landed property. Upon the properly stood a house. After sale the auction purchaser obtained possession of the house. The judgment-debtors then objected that the house should not have been delivered over, on the ground that no mention of it was made in the sale certificate. The Court below came to the conclusion that as possession had been delivered, be the order a proper or improper one, it could not interfere. The respondent takes a preliminary objection to the effect that the order of the, Court below is not an order under Section 244, inasmuch as it is not an order made between the parties to the suit or their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The appellants' learned vakil was at first disposed to question this, but on his being referred to the case of Mammod v. Locke (1897) I.L.R. 20 Mad. 487 and the case of Hira Lal Chatterji v. Gourmoni Devi (1886) I.L.R. 13 Calc. 326 he was no longer prepared to sustain his appeal. The result is that this appeal must be dismissed with costs.