JUDGMENT:

S.B. SINHA, J :

1.Leave granted.

2.A short but interesting question in regard to interpretation of Order XXI, Rule 92(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC) is involved in this appeal.

Facts :

3.R. Venugopal (since deceased), original defendant No.3, was the owner of the suit property consisting of 8 cents and 116 sq. ft. of land situated within the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation (for short, the Municipality). He transferred his right, title and interest therein by reason of a registered deed of sale in favour of one Sakunthala, the original plaintiff no. 1 in the suit and mother of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. It is, however, not in dispute that the factum of sale was not intimated to the authorities of the Municipality either by the vendor or by the vendee thereof. The vendee s name was not mutated in the records of the Municipality. Indisputably, property tax in respect of premises in question had not been paid for the period from 01.04.1970 to 31.03.1973. The property tax for two quarters, thus, was to be paid by Venugopal whereas the rest was to be paid by the vendee. The matter relating to payment of property tax is governed by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920) (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter called and referred to as the 1920 Act ).

4.With a view to enforce a statutory charge as laid down in the 1920 Act, the Municipality filed a suit, which was marked as O.S. No. 986 of 1973. Sakunthala was not a party therein. Venugopal although entered his appearance in the suit but at the subsequent stages, did not appear. Yet again he did not inform the court about the fact that he had sold the property in favour of Sakunthala. He allegedly sent an information to Sakunthala in regard thereto, but admittedly, the latter was sent at a wrong address.

5. The said suit was decreed in 1978. The Municipality filed an application for execution of the said decree, which was marked as E.P. No. 2620 of 1978. The property in question was put up on auction sale, the upset price wherefor was fixed at Rs.20,000/- by an order dated 19.03.1979. However, as allegedly no buyer was available, an application for reduction of upset price was filed being E.A. No. 284 of 1979 for bringing it down from Rs.20,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. It was, however, directed to be reduced to Rs. 10,000/-, but therefor no notice was issued to the judgment debtor, as is required in terms of Order XXI, Rule 66 CPC. Yet again without any other order being passed for further reduction of the upset price, the suit property was sold on auction for a sum of Rs.8,010/- in favour of one Manickam, original defendant no. 1, on 06.08.1979.

6.It will be appropriate to place on record that although at one point of time there existed a dispute as to whether the said Manickam was the wife of Venugopal or not, it stands accepted that a relationship of husband and wife had been existing by and between them. The said auction sale was not only confirmed by an order dated 11.10.1979, but a sale certificate was also issued on or about 04.12.1979. An application for withdrawal of the said auction amount was filed by the Municipality, which had been allowed and a cheque was directed to be issued in its favour. The said order was complied with on 20.02.1981.

7.Manickam allegedly sold the said property in favour of one M/s Ramans for a sum of Rs.41,066/- by a registered deed of sale dated 22.08.1981. Having learnt that the property in question had been sold in auction, Sakunthala filed a suit for declaration and possession, against her vendor, his mother and wife on or about 27.08.1981. The plaintiff then allegedly had no knowledge in regard to the sale of the said property in favour of one M/s Ramans. In her written statement, defendant no. 1 denied that she was the wife of the judgment-debtor and disclosed that she had sold the property during the pendency of the said suit. M/s Ramans despite knowledge of the pendency of the