- (1.) THIS is an appeal by the receiver of the estate of Ganeshi Lal, Kesar Lal and Gulab Chand insolvents and by Hari Dass who purchased a house and a shop belonging to the latter from the former, against an order of the District Judge, Jaipur District, holding that the sale of the same property in favour of Bhonri Lal respondent No. 1 in execution of a decree against the insolvents must prevail over the sale in favour of Hari Dass by the receiver.
(2.) BHONRI Lal obtained a money decree for Rs. 4,522/8/0 against Ganeshi Lal, Kesar Lal in execution of which a house and a shop belonging to them were sold for Rs. 3,226/-on 3. 5. 32 in his favour. The judgment-debtors filed on objection under Order 21 Rule 90 C. P. C. on 8. 5. 52 which was dismissed on 4. 6. 54 and the sale was confirmed on 9. 1. 56. The judgment debtors appealed against the order refusing to set aside the sale and this appeal was allowed on 16. 4. 56 by the District Judge and the sale in favour of BHONRI Lal decree-holder was set aside. BHONRI Lal filed a revision application against the order of the District Judge which was allowed and the sale in his favour was restored by the order of this Court dated 20-12-60. On 21. 5. 52 the judgment-debtors filed an insolvency petition under sec. 10 of the Insolvency Act. On 19. 4. 58 they were adjudged as insolvents and a receiver was appointed under sec. 56 to take possession over the house and the shop belonging to the insolvents which were sold in favour of Bhonri Lal on 3. 5. 52. The receiver sold this property to Hari Dass on 28. 5. 60. On 17. 9. 60 Hari Dass filed an application before the District Judge praying that the sale made in his favour by the receiver be confirmed. This application as rejected by the learned District Judge by his order under appeal on the ground that under sec. 65 C. P. C. the property vested in Bhonri Lal with effect from 3. 5. 52, the date on which it was sold in his favour at the auction sale and as it was anterior to 20. 5. 52 the date on which the insolvency petition was presented under sec. 10 of the Insolvency Act the sale in favour of Bhonri Lal must prevail. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that assets are not realised within the meaning of sec. 51 Insolvency Act till the sale is confirmed. I am unable to accept this contention which is neither supported by any provision of law nor by any authority. Assets are realised when the sale proceeds are deposited in court. In a case in which the property is purchased by a third party one-fourth of the purchase money has to be deposited on the date of sale and the balance has to be deposited within 15 days so that in such a case the assets are realised 15 days after the sale has taken place. But the sale is not confirmed till the expiry of 30 days. It is thus clear that it cannot be contended that assets are not realised till the sale is confirmed. In a case where the decree-holder is the purchaser assets to the extent of the decretal amount are realised as soon as the sale is concluded and the balance payable by him in case the purchase price exceeds the decreal amount is realised within 15 days of sale. The first contention put forward on behalf of the appellants has therefore no force. The next contention is that when the sale was set aside by the appellate court on 16. 4. 56 the property vested in the receiver on 19. 4. 58 when the order of adjudication was passed and the decree-holder purchaser was divested of it and further that when the sale was restored by the order of this Court the property could not revest in the decree-holder purchaser. No law or authority was cited in support of this contention. I am not satisfied that this contention has any force. The effect of the order of this Court passed in revision was to vest the property in the decree-holder purchaser with effect from 3. 5. 52. The order of adjudication could only vest the property in the receiver with effect from 21. 5. 52. As the date 3. 5. 52 is anterior to the date 21. 5. 52 the property vested effectively in the decree-holder purchaser and did not vest in the receiver at all. In the Official Assignee of Madras Vs. N. Ponnuswamy Mudali (1) the debtor was adjudged an insolvent before an order confirming the sale was passed. The Official Assignee moved the Court not to confirm the sale as the insolvent's property had vested in him. It was held that according to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code Jan auction purchaser's title dates from the date of the sale provided the sale is confirmed by the Court and consequently before the order of confirmation he has an inchoate right which he is entitled to have recognised and perfected. The sale was confirmed and the objection of the Official Assignee was overruled. In this view of the matter the inchoate right in favour of the decree-holder purchaser was created before the insolvency petition was filed and as the sale was eventually upheld by the order of this Court his right to the property could not be affected by the order of adjudication which related back to the date of the presentation of the petition under sec. 28 (7) of the Insolvency Act. A similar view was taken in Achambhit Lal Vs. Chhanga Mal (2 ). I am therefore of the opinion that the order of the learned District Judge is correct. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. .;