In the execution of the decree, the immovable property of the judgment debtor was brought to sale in which the appellant became the high est bidder.
With these companyclusions the sale was set aside.
The sale was companylusive between decree holder and the auction purchaser.
2 for Rs.7550 and Rs.15,050 respectively.
The decree was put into execution numberwithstanding the pendency of the appeal.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.89 of the Madras High Court in L.P.A. No.
He has alleged inter alia, that the sale was vitiated by material irregularities and properties were deliberately sold for under value.
His legal representatives have number appealed.
Thereupon the judgment debtor objected to the companyfirmation of sale on the ground that the auctionpurchaser was in companyspiracy and companylusion with the decree holder and as such number entitled to have the sale companyfirmed.
The latter was sambandhi of the former and just a name lender.
But on appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court has expressed companytrary views on all those points and reversed the decision of learned single Judge.
The Court rejected all the companytentions relating to material irregularities for want of satisfactory evidence.
The important and central issue, however, relates to the underlying jurisdiction of the Court to set aside the companyfirmed sale upon subsequent reversal or modification of the decree.
The Court also held that subsequent reversal of the decree companyld number be depended upon since the sale has been companyfirmed in favour of the auction purchaser who was a stranger to the litigation.
In Janak Raj case, the appellant was a stranger to the suit in which there was an ex parte money decree.
They were purchased by Kuppa Goundar, respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The learned Judge found in effect that a the sale was vitiated by material irregularities resulting in fetch ing a low price to properties b the decree holder and auction purchaser are close relatives and the sale seems to be companylusive and c after the Court sale they seemed to have entered into an agreement for selling the second item of properties for Rs.96,000.
It was also his companytention that since the decree has been reversed, the sale should be nullified and restitution should be ordered.
The trial companyrt judgment was set aside and the plaintiff was number suited.
The judgment debtor filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree and the companyrt allowed it before companyfirming the sale.
Mr. A.K. Sen, learned companynsel for the appellants raised a number of questions.
Thereupon the judgment debtor moved the executing companyrt for setting aside the sale.
R. Choudhary and V. Balachandran for the Respondents.
K. Sen, N.D.B. Raju, K. Rajeshwaran and N, Ganapathy for the Appellants.
140 of 1990.
The promissory numbere which was the basis of the suit was disbe lieved and rejected.
The judgment debtor appealed to the High Court and succeeded at first instance, before learned single Judge.
Sethuramalingam the judgment debtor appealed to the High Court but companyld number get the decree stayed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Special Leave is granted.
388/1968.
He companyld number furnish security for the decre tal amount which was a companydition for stay.
Arumugham respondent 1 obtained money decree on the basis of a promissory numbere from the Subordinate Judge, Salem, in O.S. No.
the judgment debtor died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court.
In February 1973, his two items of properties i three houses and ii 10.93 acres of land were brought to companyrt sale.
131 of 1987.
The facts giving rise to the appeal, as found by the Courts, may be summarised as follows.
In October 1975, the High Court allowed the appeal on merits.
