SORIMUTHU PILLAI Vs. MUTHUKRISHNA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of a petition filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 12 of 1928 under Secs.47, 151 and Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which they asked either that the Court should not confirm the auction sale held in execution of the decree against them or that the Court should set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code, for which they deposited 5 per cent, of the purchase money.

(2.) The property was sold in two lots; one lot was purchased by the decree-holders themselves who were respondents 1 and 2 to the petition, and the other lot was purchased by the 3 respondent. The Lower Courts refused to confirm the sale so far as the first lot was concerned as the purchasers were decree-holders themselves, but with regard to the 3rd respondent to the petition, who is a stranger auction-purchaser, the Court dismissed both the prayers in the petition. It is against this order that the present civil miscellaneous second appeal and civil revision petition have been filed. The 3 respondent to the petition - the stranger auction-purchaser - is the only respondent in this Court.

(3.) The facts necessary for understanding the contentions of the parties are these: Against the decree passed in the suit the petitioners preferred an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the decree-holders, i.e., respondents 1 and 2 to the petition, brought the properties of the petitioners to sale in execution of the decree and themselves purchased the first lot as already stated, while the second lot was purchased by the 3 respondent. The sale was held on the 3 October, 1930. On the 16 October, 1930, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The present petition was filed by the petitioners on the 27 October, 1930, i.e., after the dismissal of the suit by the Appellate Court and before the confirmation of the sale.