( 1 ) THE unsuccessful decree-holder is the petitioner. He obtained a decree against one N. Krishna Murthy for Rs. 1, 895/. In execution thereof, the house of the judgment-debtor was sold at an auction October 21, 1975 for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- which was deposited to the credit of the suit. The sale was confirmed on December 19, 1975. On the same day, an order was passed recording full satisfaction of the decree. In the meanwhile, by a letter dated January 6, 1976 received by the Court on January 8, 1976, the sales-tax Officer intimated to the Court that the judgment-debtor was due of a sum of Rs, 1, 730/- towards arrears of sales-tax and that in recognition of the priority of the State the said amount might be paid over to the Government. Subsequently, a regular application being E. A. No. 217/76 also has been filed by the State on February 26, 1976 for payment thereof. This fact of the intimation given by the Sales Tax Officer receiv ed by the Court on January 8, 1976 "was overlooked inadvertently" as held by the executing court. Therefore, on a petition for payment out, it was ordered on January 17, 1976. Subsequently on realising the mistake the Court has recalled the cheque and the petitioner accordingly redeposited.

( 2 ) IN the enquiry held in E. A. 217/76, petitioner took the stand the contending that on confirmation of the sale on December"19, 1975, the judgment-debtor ceased to have any interest in the money in deposit and thereafter the application claiming priority of the State debt was filed. Therefore the state cannot lay claim of priority for crown debt nor ask for payment. On confirmation of the sale, the petitioner acquired a right to the money realised. Therefore the petition cannot be ordered. The trial Court negatived these contentions and allowed the claim of the State. It was confirmed by the appellate Court. Against these orders the present revision has been filed.

( 3 ) SRI Sitaramaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner realising the futility of the stand taken by the petitioner did not pursue it but contended that on December 19, 1975, the Court passed an order recording full satisfaction. Thereafter, the intimation by the Sales Tax Officer of the due by the judgment debtor of the arrears of sales-tax was received by the Court on January 8,1976. As a consequence of recording full satisfaction, the cheque was issued to the petitioner on January 17, 1976. Therefore the petitioner acquired title to the money. The Court, thereafter has no power to recall the money paid to the decree-holder. In support of this contention, he relied on the decisions reported in Murali vs. Asoomal and Co. (1) kumar vs. P. Gopal (1) and Somasundaram Mills vs. Union of India (2 ). In fairness to him, he also cited the decisions of this Court in P. Ganapathi Rao vs. Prakasa Rao (3); S. R. R. and Oil. Mills Co. vs. Addl. I. T. Officer and also State vs. Kotak and Co. (5), This Court has taken the View that the Court has got power to recognise the priority of the State debt till the amount ia appropriated and the view of the Allahabad High Court is that the Court has inherent power to review the orders passed earlier to make payment and in recognition of the priority of the State debt, it should be paid to the state. When his attention was drawn by the Court to Corpus Juris Secundum for the meaning appropriation he modulated this contention that the view of this Court is not inconsistent with the view of the Calcutta High court. , Appropriation would mean setting apart the amount and by passing an order to make over payment, the petitioner has appropriated the money. The view of the Allahabad High Court is not correct. The Division bench decision of the Madras High Court in Somasundaram Mills case (2) also support his contention.

( 4 ) MISS Lakshmi Devi, learned Government Pleader did not cite any authorities since the view of this Court in the two judgments referred to above and the Allahabad High Court were alr