(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) WE have heard learned counsel on both sides.

(3) THESE appeals by special leave arise from the order of the High court of Kerala made on 1/11/1995 in CRPs Nos. 1745 and 1980 of 1995. The case has a chequered history, details of which need no repetition. Suffice it to state that the late V. Madhava Raja owed certain dues towards income tax, wealth tax and agricultural income tax. On his demise, when a partition suit, viz., OS no. 1 of 1964 was filed for division of the properties by metes and bounds among the sharers, an attempt was made by the State to have the estate attached for recovery of the tax dues. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the court passed an order avoiding attachment and directed the Joint Commissioners to recover the dues from the estate and pay over the same to the income tax and other government dues. On an application, final decree was passed on 15/7/1967 in which the appellants had purchased 4/13th share. In the final decree proceedings for recovery of dues of the State certain properties came to be identified and ultimately Devi Vilas Palace was also agreed to be sold by order of the court dated 28/1/19833 for recovery of the arrears. Several attempts made to sell out the properties to the co-sharers for realisation of the tax dues of the State remained unsuccessful. Consequently, by order of the court dated 8/4/1992, direction was given to sell the property by public auction. After due publicity, the property in dispute was sold on 15/6/1992 for a sum of Rs. 31,15,000. Under the terms of the sale, l/4th of the bid amount was required to be deposited forthwith and the balance amount was to be deposited within 15 days thereafter. In default, l/4th amount was to be forfeited. In the meanwhile, pending the litigation, the matter reached twice to this court. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8040 of 1992 came to be filed in this court wherein this court passed an interim order directing stay of the confirmation of the sale. Resultantly, the auction-purchaser-respondents filed an application in the court on 26/6/1992 seeking permission to withdraw from the auction. Pending that application, they filed another application on 29/6/19922 for extension of time to deposit 3/4th amount. Ultimately, by order dated 19-9-1992, this court had dismissed the special leave petition with liberty to the executing court to confirm the sale already made etc. In the meanwhile, the court passed vague orders on auction-purchasers applications for permission to withdraw from auction and for extension of time. Auction-purchaser filed a revision in the High court. The learned Single Judge further directed the trial court to consider the matter in the light of the direction issued by this court in the special leave petition.

(4) THE appellants also filed an application under Order 21 Rule 90 Civil Procedure Code to set aside the sale. All these matters were heard together and by order dated 16/8/1995, the executing court rejected the objections to the sale and extended time for payment of the balance amount. The matter was then carried in revision to the High Court and the High court dismissed the revision petitions. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

(5) SHRI D.D. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has contended that its clear from the record that the arrears for recovery of the tax were liquidated as on the date of the sale. Therefore, the property was not liable to be sold. This court having considered the contention, passed an order on 27/11/1995 directing the respondents to place on record whether any liability as on the date of the auction, viz., 15/6/1992 was subsisting. In pursuance thereof, a certificate dated 6/12/1995 was produced in which the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Palghat had certified that a sum of Rs. 5,15,824.00 was still due and recoverable from the estate of Venugopala Verma Raja, Kollengode estate. In view of these facts,