The main legal principle established in the judgment is that an order on a claim petition is binding only on the parties to the proceedings or persons claiming under them. If the judgment debtor is not made a party, the order is of limited scope and does not extend beyond the execution of the decree.

( 1 ) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal against the Judgment of panchapagesa Sastri, J. , dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bapatla confirming that of the District Munsif of ongole in a suit for declaration and injunction, or in the alternative, for possession. The 1st defendant obtained a decree against the 2nd defendant in Small Cause suit No. 617 of 1936 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Ongole. In execution of that decree the plaint schedule property was attached and brought to sale. Before the sale, the 3rd defendant preferred a claim petition E. A. No. 787 of 1941 setting up title to the same. Though the judgment-debtor was made a party to the application, no notice was taken to him. Arguments in the claim petition were heard on 21st July, 1941, but orders were pronounced only on 25th July, 1941, allowing the claim. On 2 1st July, 1941, notwithstanding the pendency of the claim petition, the auction sale was held and the 1st plaintiff purchased the property.

( 2 ) ON igth August, 1941, the 3rd defendant filed an application under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, praying that the sale may be cancelled but that was dismissed by the learned District Munsif on the ground that it was not maintainable under Order 21, rules 89 to 91, Civil Procedure Code. Again on 8th January, 1942, the 3rd defendant filed another petition requesting the Court not to confirm the sale but that was also dismissed on 26th January, 1942. After the auction-purchaser had taken delivery of possession, the 3rd defendant filed another application under order 21, rule 100, Civil Procedure Code, praying that the Court should not record the delivery said to have been effected or that it should direct re-delivery of the property to the 3rd defendant if the property was found to have been delivered to he auction-purchaser. That petition was dismissed on the ground that, on the allegations in the petition, it was not maintainable. Thereafter, on 25th octobe , 1943, that 1st plaintiff and his lessee the 2nd plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of the 1st plaintiff s title and for an injunction against the 3rd defendant and others.

( 3 ) THE Courts below held that the order on the claim petition would not debar the 1st plaintiff from setting up his title based on the Court sale as the judgment debtor was not a party to the claim. This conclusion was arrived at on the ground that the auction-purchaser was only the representative of the judgment-debtor and that when the judgment-debtor himself, not being a party to the claim order was not bound by it, his representative also could not equally be bound by it.

( 4 ) THERE is a long catena of cases holding that a judgment-debtor, who was not a party to the claim proceedings, is not bound by the order made therein. But, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Velu Padayachi v. Arumugam Filial, (1919) 38 M. L. J. 397. held that, under similar circumstances, the auction-purchaser was bound by the claim order though the judgment-debtor was not a party to the proceedings. The reason for the decision was expressed at page 401 as follows :"but ordinarily, it is the decree-holder s right to bring the property to sale against the claim of the claimant s right to have the property released (or sold subject to the claimant and the claim) which are litigated in such a petition. The auction-purchaser is entitled to take advantage of the order against the claimant in such a case (if it is not set aside by a suit within one year) not because the purchaser is the representative of the decree-holder but because the older which established the right of the decree-holder to bring the property to sale against the claim of the claimant cannot be given effect to otherwise and was clearly intended by the Legislature to have the effect of precluding the claimant from putting forward his claim again in opposition to the auction-purchaser at the