JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:— Respondent 1 obtained a money decree on August 18, 1962 against respondent 3 and his mother respondent 4. On June 28, 1963 respondent 1 filed an execution petition for recovering the decretal amount and prayed therein for attachment of the immovable property belonging to respondent 3. The property was attached by an order passed by the Executing Court on July 13, 1963. On November 27, 1963 respondent 1 filed an application in the Executing Court praying that permission be obtained of the Revenue Divisional Officer for sale of the property since respondent 3 to whom the property belonged was a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The permission was considered necessary by reason of the provisions contained in Cl. 6 of the "Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property by Scheduled Tribes Regulation No. 2 of 1956." It provides:

In execution of money decree against a member of a Schedule Tribe no right, title or interest held by him in any immovable property within any scheduled area shall be liable to be attached and sold except as and if prescribed.

Rule 4 made under the aforesaid Regulation provides:

There shall be no attachment or sale of immovable property in execution of a money decree against a member of a Scheduled Tribe within any scheduled area without the written permission of the competent authority. The property at such a sale shall be sold only to a member of a Scheduled Tribe unless otherwise specifically directed in writing by the competent authority.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nowrangpur, was the competent authority for the present purpose.

2. Respondent 3 who was in the meantime negotiating for the private sale of the property moved the R.D.O. Nowrangpur on June 18, 1963 for permission to sell the property to a non-Scheduled Tribe person. He obtained the requisite permission by an order dated October 23, 1963 for the sale of the property for Rs. 4,000/-. On the strength of the aforesaid permission respondent 3 sold the property to the appellant on Jan. 2, 1964 by a registered deed of sale.

3. A copy of the order passed by the R.D.O. was produced by respondent 1 in the Executing Court whereupon, on May 15, 1964 the property was put to sale. Respondent 2, who is the son of respondent 1 purchased the property in the auction sale.

4. On June 22, 1964 the appellant filed an application under O. 21 Rules 89 and 90 and Ss. 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the auction sale should be set aside on the ground that the attachment and the auction sale were void since they were effected without obtaining the permission of the competent authority under Orissa Regulation No. 2 of 1956. The appellant also alleged that the decree-holder had played a fraud on the Court by inducting it to put the property to sale on the strength of the Order dated Oct. 23, 1963 which was passed by the competent authority at the instance of the appellant.

5. Respondent 2 resisted the appellants application on the ground that he was a bona fide purchaser in a court sale, that the aforesaid sale was held after the competent authority had granted permission for the sale of the property and that therefore his title to the property was not liable to be displaced at the instance of the appellant.

6. The learned District Munsif who dealt with the matter accepted the contention of the appellant and set aside the auction sale. In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9 of 1965 filed by respondent 1, the Appellate Judge confirmed the order of the District Munsif and dismissed the appeal.

7. Respondent 1 then filed a second appeal in the Orissa High Court, being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 208 of 1966. Before the High Court respondent 1 raised two contentions only viz., (1) that the judgment-debtor, respondent 3, was not a member of the Schedule Tribe and therefore the attachment and the court sale were not void; and (2) that the judgment-debtors, having failed to take objection to the attachment on the ground that they be