JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:- Special Leave is granted.

2. This appeal is from a decision of the Madras High Court which denied the appellants claim for setting aside a judicial sale.

3. The facts giving rise to the appeal, as found by the Courts, may be summarised as follows:-

Arumugham respondent 1 obtained money decree on the basis of a promissory note from the Subordinate Judge, Salem, in O . S. No. 388/1968. Sethuramalingam the judgment debtor appealed to the High Court but could not get the decree stayed. He could not furnish security for the decretal amount which was a condition for stay. The decree was put into execution notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal. In February 1973, his two items of properties; (i) three houses and (ii) 10.93 acres of land were brought to court sale. They were purchased by Kuppa Goundar, respondent No. 2 for Rs.7550/and Rs. 15,050/- respectively. In October 1975, the High Court allowed the appeal on merits. The promissory note which was the basis of the suit was disbelieved and rejected. The trial court judgment was set aside and the plaintiff was non-suited. Thereupon the judgment debtor moved the executing court for setting aside the sa