N.N.Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS is judgment -debtor's second appeal against dismissal of his objections under Section 47 C.P.C. against sale of his property in pursuance of the money decree passed against him. The facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal may be stated as under: Respondent No. 1 is the decree holder who had obtained a money decree for approximately Rs. 15,000/ - against the appellant. Respondent No. 2 is the auction purchaser. Total land, which belonged to the appellant was three bighas seven biswas and, as such, he came within the category of a small farmer within the meaning of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977. The property was put to auction on 10th May, 1974 and the sale was confirmed on 17th of January, 1975. By an order dated 28th of August, 1975 the decree was ordered to be satisfied. U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 was enforced from 10th October, 1975. The object of this Act was to provide for moratorium on recovery of debts from the landless agricultural labourers, small and marginal farmers and some others as a temporary measure for one year. The contention of the appellant is that on the enforcement of this Act the proceedings in execution ought to have been stayed and thereafter when U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977 was enforced his debts should have been wiped out or atleast scaled down in accordance with the provisions of that Act.
(2.) THE controversy in the present appeal, therefore, revolves on two questions; one, what is the effect of confirmation of auction sale and secondly whether even after confirmation of sale on 17th January 1975 and recording of satisfaction of the decree by an order dated 27th July, 1975 the provisions of Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 would still apply and, if so, to what extent? As for the first question once the property is attached in execution of the decree and is put to auction and the auction sale is confirmed under Order 21 Rule 92 the sale in favour of the auction purchaser becomes absolute. The auction money then becomes payable to the decree holder or such other person as may be held entitled thereto. According to Section 65 C.P.C. when on confirmation of the sale it becomes absolute the vesting of the property in the purchaser relates to the date of auction sale. Section 65 reads as under: Where immovable property is sold in execution of a decree and such sale has become absolute the property shall be deemed to have vested in the purchaser from the time when the property is sold and not from the time when the sale becomes absolute.
(3.) THIS section must be read along with Order 21 Rule 84 onwards which deal with the sale of immovable property in execution of decree. However the provision really relevant for our purposes is to be found in Rule 92 which runs as under: Rule 92 Sale when to become absolute or be set aside - -(1) Where no application is made under Rule 89, Rule 90 or Rule 91, or where such application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. Provided that, where any property is sold in execution of a decree pending the final disposal of any claim to, or any objection to the attachment of, such property, the Court shall not confirm such sale until the final disposal of such claim or objection. (2) Where such application is made and allowed and where, in the case of an application under Rule 89, the deposit required by that rule is made within thirty days from the date of sale (or in cases where the amount deposited under Rule 89 is found to be deficient owing to any clerical or arithmetical mistake on the part of the depositor and such deficiency has been made good within such time as may be fixed by the Court' the Court shall make an order setting aside the sale). Provided that no order shall be made unless notice of the application has been given to all persons affected thereby. (3) No suit to set aside an order made under this rule shall be brought by any person against whom such order is made. (4) Where a third party challenges the judgment debtor's title by filing a suit against the auction purchaser the decree holder and the judgment debtor shall be necessary parties to the suit. (5) If the suit referred to in sub -rule (4) is decreed, the Court shall direct the decree holder to refund the money to the auction purchaser, and where such an order is passed the execution proceeding in which the sale had been held shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be revived at the stage at which the sale was ordered.;