1. The court auction purchaser filed an application under Order XXI Rule 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing court dismissed the same, which is under challenge in this Revision. The State Bank of India, Thrikkidiri branch filed O.S.No.457 of 1996, Sub Court, Ottapalam for realisation of money. The suit was decreed. The decree holder put the decree in execution, in E.P.No.32 of 1997. The property belonging to the judgment debtor was sold in court auction and it was purchased by the revision petitioner for a sum of Rs.31,500/-. He deposited the sale amount. On 24.07.1998, the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate was issued.

2. Before the sale was confirmed, one Parameswaran Namboodiri filed O.S.No.269 of 1998 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ottappalam for a declaration that the attachment and sale in E.P.No.32 of 1997 does not bind the plaint schedule property (the property which was sold in court auction in E.P.No.32 of 1997) and that the property belongs absolutely to the plaintiff. A permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought for, restraining the defendants from obstructing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The defendants in O.S.No.269 of 1998 were: (1) the judgment debtor in O.S.No.457 of 1996; (2) the decree holder- State Bank of India and (3) the auction purchaser/ revision petitioner. O.S.No.269 of 1998 was decreed as prayed for. It was found by the court that an extent of 47 cents out of the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff (Parameswaran Namboodiri) and that an extent of 3 cents with a house thereon belongs to the judgment debtor.

3. Meanwhile, when the decree holder bank applied for a cheque to withdraw the amount deposited by the auction purchaser, the revision petitioner/auction purchaser filed objections contending that Parameswaran Namboodiri had filed O.S.No.269 of 1998 and that the decree holder should be permitted to withdraw the amount only after the disposal of the suit. The executing court permitted the decree holder bank to withdraw the amount and the amount was withdrawn by the bank.

4. Thereafter, the auction purchaser filed E.A.No.654 of 2000 in E.P.No.32 of 1997 under Order XXI Rule 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to direct the bank to pay back the amount deposited by the auction purchaser. The application was opposed by the decree holder-bank. It was contended by the bank that the application under Order XXI Rule 93 filed by the revision petitioner is not maintainable. The court below accepted that contention and rejected the application.

5. It is well settled that in a court auction sale, there is no guarantee for title. The auction purchaser steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor. Any defect in title of the judgment debtor would be defect in title of the auction purchaser as well. The auction purchaser is not entitled to complain of any defect in the title of the judgment debtor except in the manner provided under Order XXI Rule 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows:

"91. Application by purchaser to set aside sale on ground of judgment-debtor having no saleable interest.- The Purchaser at any such sale in execution of a decree may apply to the Court to set aside the sale, on the ground that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the property sold."

6. In the application under Order XXI Rule 91, the auction purchaser would be entitled to contend that the judgment debtor had no saleable interest in the property sold, in which case, the court auction sale would be set aside if it is found that the judgment debtor had no saleable interest in the property.

7. A court auction sale could be set aside by filing an application under Rule 89 or Rule 90 or Rule 91 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. If an application is filed under Rule 89, on deposit of the purchase price, the court auction sale could be set aside. The sale could be set aside on proving material irregularity or fraud