ORDER.- The petitioners are the Court-auction-purchasers in a money cecree sale while the respondent is a decree-holder over a mortgage by deposit of title deeds effected by the common judgment-debtor. It is convenient to trace out the relevant dates during which the respondent secured a right over the property of the common judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor mortgaged by deposit of title deeds his property which would be hereinafter referred to as the property. This deposit was made on 15th February, 1971. It is conceded that the deposit of such deeds was not registered though it could have been done in law. The result was the bargain between the judgment-debtor and the respondent was only known as between themselves. The respondent not having had satisfaction towards the amount advanced by him filed O.S.No. 262 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai and obtained a final decree finally on the 9th of August, 1974. He filed E.P.No. 338 of 1973 pursuant to the final decree and obviously for the purpose of bringing the hypotheca to sale. This was on 17th September, 1973.

2. The petitioners, on the other hand attended an auction of the very same property which was the subject-matter of attachment and sale in a money decree obtained by a third party in O.S.No. 544 of 1971 on the file of the same Sub-Court. They having been declared as the highest bidders, their deposit of a sum of Rs. 75,000 was accepted and the sale was confirmed in their favour on 2nd April, 1974. Further to such confirmation of the sale the petitioners took delivery of the property on 4th July, 1974 and caused a recording of such delivery to be made in the Court records on 20th July, 1974.

3. We have already referred to the fact that the respondent pursuant to the mortgage decree obtained by him in O.S.No. 262 of 1972 filed E.P.No. 338 of 1973 to bring the property to sale. Coming to know of such proceedings undertaken by the respondent, the petitioners filed E.A. No. 777 of 1974 in E.P. No. 338 of 1973 in O.S. No. 262 of 1972 to stop the sale. The petitioners urged that they having purchased the totality of the property in execution of the money decree in O.S. No. 544 of 1971, the short history of which has already been set Out, the respondent has no further right to bring the property to sale in execution of his mortgage decree-We have already referred to the fact that the sale in favour of the petitioners was confirmed on 2nd April, 1974. Whilst the petitioners were taking poroceedings to obtain delivery of property purchased by them in Court-auction, the respondent filed E.A. No. 477 of 1974 in O.S.No. 544 of 1971, Sub-Court Madurai to withdraw that amount to which he is entitled to pursuant to the mortgage decree obtained by him in O.S.No. 262 of 1972. Curiously enough, the judgment-debtor is said to have opposed this application. The more Curious thing about it is that when the lower Court dismissed the petitioner’s application for stay of sale which was sought for in E.A. No. 777 of 1974 already referred to the respondent withdrew his application for payment out of the amount in Courts deposit and obviously therefore E.A. No. 477 of 1974 in O.S. No. 544 of 1971 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai was closed.

4. The petitioners are not satisfied with the order of the Court below which refused to grant a stay of the further proceedings by the respondent pursuant to his mortgage decree as above. Hence the revision.

5. The Court below thought that as the property has been under a mortgage in favour of the respondent prior to the Court-auction sale in favour of the petitioners and as the said mortgage has frutioned into a mortgage decree, the petitioners have no right to seek for a stay of sale of the property.

6. Mr. Veluswami, learned counsel for the petitioners who challenged the order of the Court below raises two contentions. The first one is that under section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act, the respondent’s right is now circumscribed t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document