VEDA GOUNDER AND ORS. Vs. ARUNACHALAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, to revise the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in A.S. No. 208 of 1954 on his file, arises out of proceedings in execution of the decree in S.C. No. 844 of 1933 taken subsequent to the disposal of S.A. No. 1432 of 1948 on 10th December, 1951. The respondent before me, Arunachalam Chettiar, was the plaintiff in S.C. No. 844 of 1933, and he obtained a decree against Katayya Goundan. The petitioners in these proceedings are the legal representatives of Katayya. In execution of the decree in S.C. No. 844 of 1933, the decree -holder Arunachala brought to sale the properties of the judgement -debtor Katayya and purchased them himself at the sale held on 9th November, 1942. Katayya died on 14th November, 1942, before the sale could be confirmed under Order 21, Rule 92, Civil Procedure Code. The sale was confirmed on 12th December, 1942, but without notice to the legal representatives of Katayya. In S.A. No. 1432 of 1948 to which the petitioners and respondent were parties, this Court set aside the confirmation of sale. The judgment has been reported in Arunachala Chettiar v. Vadla Kounden : AIR1952Mad871 . The respondent as the decree -holder -purchaser followed up the litigation that ended with S.A. No. 1432 of 1948 by an application to the executing Court. In effect what he wanted in that application was (1) to bring on record the legal representatives of the judgment -debtor Katayya and (2) to confirm the sale which had been held on 9th November, 1942. The petitioners pleaded that the claim of the" decree -holder -auction -purchaser was barred by limitation. The learned District Munsif allowed the claim ex parte the petitioners, who were the legal representatives of the judgment -debtor, without, however, specifically deciding the question of limitation. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge negatived the plea of limitation. That was the only issue pressed in the arguments before me in this application to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge.

(2.) CONFIRMATION of sale under Order 21, Rule 92, Civil Procedure Code, does not require an application by the auction -purchaser. Confirmation is a statutory obligation imposed on the Court, if the requirements of Order 21, Rule 92, Civil Procedure Code, are satisfied. Even if the decree -holders as auction -purchaser formally applies for confirmation of the sale, it would not be an application to which Article 181 would apply, and no question of limitation could arise. I did not understand the learned Counsel for the petitioners to challenge this position.

(3.) THE conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge was therefore right. This petition fails and is dismissed with costs.