The main legal point established in the judgment is that the subsistence of debt, satisfaction of decree, and confirmation of sale are crucial factors in determining the entitlement to relief under the Travancore-Cochin Indebted Agriculturists Relief Act 3 of 1956.

1. The judgment-debtor's property having been sold in execution on June 6, 1956, petition to set aside the sale under 0.21, R.90 was filed in due time, and thereby its confirmation was averted. On September 11, 1956 the Travancore-Cochin Indebted Agriculturists Relief Act 3 of 1956 came into force; and on November 8, 1956, the judgment-debtor filed a petition before the executing court to allow him to discharge the decree as per the provisions in that Act and nullify the sale. On November 26,1956, the learned Munsiff found that the defendant has not made out "any material irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the sale," dismissed the petition under 0.21 R.90, held that "merely because the sale was not confirmed the petitioner cannot be considered to have any right in the property sold; by the sale the rights of the petitioner have ceased in the decree-schedule properties; he cannot therefore claim any relief under Act 3 of 1956", and dismissed the latter petition also. The judgment-debtor took the matter in appeal. C.M.A. No. 40 of 1957 was against the order dismissing the petition under 0.21, R.90, and A.S. No. 15 of 1957 against the order disallowing the petition under Act 3 of 1956. The learned District Judge allowed them both. CRP. No. 262 of 1958 is against the order allowing the petition under 0.21, R.90, CPC., and S.A. No. 246 of 1958 is against the order allowing the petition under Act 3 of 1956.

2. It is not denied that the judgment-debtor in the instant case is an agriculturist within the meaning of Act 3 of 1956, or that, if the debt is found to subsist at the commencement of the Act in spite of the unconfirmed court-sale, the judgment-debtor would be entitled to the benefits of the Act to get the decree discharged as per its provisions.

3. Act 3 of 1956 does not provide for setting aside sales held in execution. It defines debt as meaning "any liability in cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from an agriculturist on the commencement of this Act, whether payable under a contract or under a decree or order of a Court, Civil or Revenue, or otherwise "

4. The material dispute in the case is whether the debt subsists on the date the Act came into force; the judgment-debtor contends that, in spite of the unconfirmed court-safe the decree debt subsists so as to attract Act 3 of 1956; and the decree-holder-auction purchaser maintains that, once the sale had taken place at which with the permission of the court he had set off the decree amount against the purchase money, the decree became satisfied and therefore any further application to have the decree discharged by instalments under Act 3 of 1956 cannot lie.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant laid considerable stress on the provisions of 0.21 R.72, CPC:

"(1) No holder of a decree in execution of which property is sold shall, without the express permission of the court, bid for or purchase the property.

(2) Where a decree-holder purchases with such permission, the purchase money and the amount due on the decree may, subject to the provisions of S.73, be set off against one another, and the Court executing the decree shall enter up satisfaction of the decree in whole or in part accordingly."

The contention is that the 'purchase' is made as soon as the court-sale takes place; it does not await a confirmation; on the sale taking place the title to the property vests in the auction purchaser subject only to a later defeasance if an order comes to be made under R.92 (2) of 0.21, CPC; and therefore satisfaction that is mentioned in R.72 has taken place on the date of the sale itself when, as in this case, the decree-holder has purchased the property and been allowed to set off the decree amount against the purchase money. All that R.72 provides is where a decree holder 'purchases' satisfaction of the decree may be entered to the extent of the purchase money. It does not go further and say when the decree-holder is to be taken as having 'purchased' the j