K.T. Sankaran, J.

The question involved in this Revision is whether the judgment debtor is entitled to contend that he has no absolute title over the property sought to be sold by the court in execution of the money decree passed against him, and therefore, the property is not liable to be sold in execution of the decree.

2. The first respondent obtained a money decree against the revision petitioner and the second respondent. The decree passed by the trial court is for the refund of the advance amount received by the judgment debtor on the basis of an agreement for sale of an item of immovable property. Therefore, there is a statutory charge on the property under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act. The property was brought to sale in execution for the realisation of the decree amount. The property has an extent of 62 cents. The revision petitioner/judgment debtor filed an objection contending that the decree is not executable by sale of the property in question as the property is a non-patta land belonging to the Government. It was contended that the decree holder has not produced particulars regarding the revenue assessed upon the property and also whether there is any encumbrance on the property. The decree holder also did not mention the nature and character of the property sought to be sold.

3. The decree holder contended that whatever right the judgment debtor has in the property is liable to be sold in execution of the decree. The judgment debtor is not entitled to object to the sale contending that he has no absolute title to the property.

4. The court below noticed that the parties conceded that the properties sought to be sold is a non-patta land. An Amin was deputed to ascertain the market value of the property for the purpose of fixing the upset price to be shown in the sale proclamation. The Amin reported that tentage value of the property was Rs. 1,800/-. No objection was filed to the report submitted by the Amin. The court below accepted the valuation as suggested by the Amin. The court below held that it is not necessary to sell the entire extent of the property and it would be sufficient if an extent of 12 cents on the north- western side of the property is sold. Accordingly, a proclamation was ordered to be issued for the sale of 12 cents of land. The court below also held that in the proclamation, it should be mentioned that the property is subject to the power of the Government to proceed against the auction purchaser as per the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and that this should be mentioned at the time of confirmation of the sale also and in the Sale Certificate. The contentions raised by the judgment debtor/Revision Petitioner were rejected by the court below.

5. Sri. George Cherian, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property sought to be sold in court auction must belong to the judgment debtor and the court must be satisfied that it belongs to the judgment debtor. If the property belongs to the Government and the judgment debtor has only possessory rights, such a property cannot be sold in court auction.

6. Sri. George Thomas Mevada, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/decree holder and Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court supported the conclusion arrived at by the court below. They submitted that in a court sale, there is no guarantee for title and it is for the auction purchaser to ascertain and satisfy himself as to the rights which he would get on purchasing a property. It is not the concern of the judgment debtor whether the auction purchaser would get title to the property bid in auction. The scheme of provisions relating to execution contained in the Civil Procedure Code shows that at the time of sale, the court need not enquire into the question whether the judgment debtor has absolute, indefeasible or marketable title to the property. Whatever rights the judgment debtor has,