The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the sale of property in a court auction renders the sale null and void.

( 1 ) CIVIL Revision Petition No. 75 of 1981 by the petitioner is directed against the order dated 20-11-1980 passed by the Munsiff, Mandya, in Misc. No. 57 of 1976 filed under Sec. 47 C. P. C. dismissing the same. Regular Second Appeal No. 363 of 1981 by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-1-1981 passed by the Civil Judge. Mandya, in r. A. No. 320/76 confirming the judgment and decree dated 4-11-1976 passed by the Additional Munsiff, Mandya, in o. S. No. 126 of 1975 decreeing the plaintiff's suit.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner in C. R. P. No. 75 of 1981 is the appellant in the second appeal. He has been referred to as the petitioner throughout in the course of this judgment. Respondent-1 Lingappa in Misc. No. 57 of 1976 is respondent-1 in the second appeal. Respondant-2 Basavaiah in misc. No. 57 of 1976 is also respondent-2 in the second appeal. The said basavaiah has died and his legal representatives have come on record. They are referred to as respondents-1 and 2 in the course of this order.

( 3 ) BOTH these cases are disposed of by a common judgment as the substantial question involved in both the cases is the same.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT-1 Lingappa filed a suit against the petitioner, in 0. S. No. 212/63 to recover Rs. 245/ -. The said suit was decreed exparte on 19-6-1963. Respondent-1 Lingappa sued out execution in Execution No. 966/63 for executing the exparte decree. In the said execution, he got attached the revision petitioner's two lands including S No. 6/1 on 6-8-1963. Thereafter the petitioner filed Misc. No. 175/63 under order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. to set aside the exparte decree passed in O. S. No. 212/ 63. The said Misc. No. 175/63 was allowed and the exparte decree passed in o. S. No. 212/63 was set aside and the suit was restored to file. Thereafter a fresh decree was passed by consent in o. S. No. 212/63 on 23-6-1964. Thereafter respondent-1 Lingappa the plaintiff in O. S. No. 212/63 sued put execution in Execution No. 573/70 in order to execute the said consent decree. S. No. 6/1 belonging to the petitioner who was defendant in O. S. No. 212/63, was sold by court auction on 21-6-1971. The decree holder respondent-1 himself purchased it with the permission of the court. The sale was confirmed on 21-7-1971. Thereafter respondent-1 lingappa filed Misc. No. 124/72 and obtained delivery of possession of the property on 10-10-1972. According to the revision petitioner, he continued to be in possession of the property and he was never disposed from the property. The decree holder respondent-1 lingappa alone filed the suit 0. S. No. 126/75 in the court of the Munsiff, mandya, for a declaration of his title to the suit property i. e. , S. No. 6/1 and for permanent Injunction. Later on during the pendency of the suit, he sold this property to respondent-2 Basavaiah on 15-3-1975 and the said Basavaiah came on record as coplaintiff-2 in the said suit. An amendment was sought in the said suit praying for possession in the alternative. The said suit O. S. No. 126/ 75 was decreed on 4-11-1976.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER the revision petitioner filed Misc. No. 57 of 1976 under section 47 read with Section 151 C. P. C. on 3-12-1976 alleging that the court sale of Revision S. No. 6/1 belonging to him was null and void as the cause was not issued to him or was not served on him, and on the ground that respondent-1 Lingappa had played fraud from the date of the institution of the suit o. S. No. 212/63 till the disposal of Misc. No. 124/72 including the execution proceeding in Execution Case No. 573/70 and the entire execution proceeding was illegal, and also on the ground that the respondent-1 decree holder Lingappa had not got attached the property at all and thus the sale without attachment, rendered the sale null and void, and also on the ground that no sale proclamation was issued or published and thus the sale held without the publication of the sale proclamation rendered the sale null and v