( 1 ) THIS appeal arises froman order passed in E. A. No. 143/91 in E. P. No. 24/90 in O. S. No. 223/84 on the file of the Subordinate judges Court at Gudivadaon22-8-1992.

( 2 ) THE appellant being the 4th Judgment debtor (J. Dr.) in E. P. No. 24/90 filed eano. 143/91 under Order 21, Rule 90 and under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the sale held in respect of the petition schedule property (Item No. 7 of the execution Petition schedule ). The 1st respondent herein is the Decree Holder (D. Hr ). The 2nd respondent is the auction purchaser. The appellant challenged before the court of the subordinate Judge,gudivada the validity of the sale of the petition schedule property in execution of the decree passed in O. S. No. 223/84 on several grounds such as; (1) she was not served with any notice in the execution proceeding at any stage; (2) She had no knowledge of the execution proceeding; (3) the property was sold for grossly inadequate sum; (4) The D. Hr. played fraud and intentionally made in correct description of the property sold and kept the court in dark about the real nature of the property and its value; (5) The fact that there was a tile