IMPORTANT POINT
A transferee of a judgment debtor cannot invoke Order XXI Rule 99 for re-delivery, as their rights must be independent of the judgment debtor's rights.

JUDGMENT :

Sathish Ninan, J.

The application filed seeking to set aside the court sale held on 18.08.1999 and for re-delivery was dismissed by the execution court. The applicant is in appeal.

2. The application scheduled property is the eastern 16 cents out of a larger extent of 32 cents in Sy. No.2746 of Vanchiyoor village. The 32 cents, described as having an extent of 34 cents, belonged to the defendants in OS 288/1974 of the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam. The suit was one for money. Pending the suit, they sold the property to a third party on 06.03.1986. The assignee is arrayed as respondent No.31 in the application. The assignee conveyed the property in favour of the applicant under Sale Deeds 1019/1998, 1022/1998 and 1024/1998. From out of the total extent of 32 cents, the western 16 cents was purchased by one Janardhanan Pillai. Based on the sale, the applicant effected mutation and was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property.

3. While so, on 14.07.2004 the applicant was illegally dispossessed in execution of the decree in O.S. 288/1974. The dispossession was on the strength of a sale held by the Court on 18.08.1999 in respect of the entire 32 cents of property. The decree holder was the auction purchaser. It is thereupon that the present application was filed.

4. The suit, O.S. 288/1974, was decreed on 23.03.1978, on confession. Since the immovable properties sought to be proceeded against in execution were situated at Thiruvananthapuram, the decree holder got the decree transmitted to Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter the decree holder filed E.P. 28/1982 before the Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking execution of the decree by sale of the immovable properties.

5. In execution of the decree, on 18.08.1999, the 34 cents of property described supra was auctioned and was bid by the decree holder. The sale was confirmed on 15.12.1999. The decree holder took delivery of the property on 14.07.2004.

6. Challenging the sale and seeking re-delivery, the appellant herein filed EA 937/2004. The purchaser of the western 16 cents from out of 32 cents viz., Janardhanan Pillai referred to earlier, filed EA 946/2004 seeking re-delivery of the said property. Both the petitions were dismissed by the execution court. The present Execution First Appeal is filed challenging the dismissal of EA 937/2004. Challenging the dismissal of EA 946/2004, Janardhanan Pillai had filed Execution First Appeal No.20/2005. The appeals were being jointly considered. Pending the appeals, on 28.05.2018, this Court had passed an interim order of injunction restraining alienation of the properties. In the meanwhile, Janardhanan Pillai died. Consequent to the non-impleadment of his legal representatives, on 21.08.2018 both the appeals were dismissed as abated.

7. Since Janardhanan Pillai was not a party in the present appeal, the appellants sought review of the order dismissing the present appeal. This Court as per order dated 24.01.2023 allowed the review petition and restored the appeal. In the meanwhile, the decree holder alienated the property in favour of the additional respondent No.31, who was subsequently impleaded.

8. The grounds of challenge in the application are:-

(i) The suit and the decree are fraudulent and collusive.

(ii) There was no valid attachment preceding the sale.

(iii) The sale proclamation was settled without production of encumbrance certificate.

(iv) The auction was conducted for a grossly inadequate price.

(v) Proclamation was not effected before conducting the adjourned sale, thus violating Order XXI Rule 69(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure(CPC).

9. The execution court as per the impugned order rejected the contentions.

10. We have heard Sri.G.Sreekumar (Chelur), learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri.V.G.Arun for the supporting respondent and Sri.T.Krishnannunni, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri.P.Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel and Adv. Sudhish Kumar for the contesting respondents.

11. Apart from the grounds rai