ORDER :- This petition is filed by one Veerappa Chettiar, respondent in E. A. 479 9f 1971, against the order of the Subordinate Judge. Devakottai directing rateable distribution of the assets in court between him and the petitioner in E. A. 479 of 1971.

2. The petitioner herein filed the suit O. S. No. 1 of 1970 in the Sub Court. Devakottai obtained a decree and brought the property to sale. The property was sold on 14-6-1971. On that day itself a sum of Rs. 1425 was deposited in court and the balance of Rupees 4275 was deposited on 25-6-1971. The sale was confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser on 17-7-1971.

3. The respondent herein filed the suit O. S. 581 of 1970 against the same judgment-debtor as in O. S. 1 of 1970 in the District Munsif Court of Melur and obtained a decree on 18-1-1971. He got the decree transferred to the District Munsif Court, Devakottai, on 10-6-1971. He took out an execution application and had the property attached on 23-6-1971. He applied for rateable distribution of assets in the Sub-Court. Devakottai on 5-8-1971.

4. As already stated, after the sale in execution of the decree in O. S. 1 of 1970 the sale proceeds a sum of Rs. 1425 on 14-6-1971 and the balance of Rs. 4275 on 25-6-1971 were deposited in the Sub-Court, Devakottai and the sale was confirmed on 17-7-1971. The auction purchaser in this case is the decree-holder in O. S. 581 of 1970 who got the decree transferred to the District Munsif Court, attached the property in execution of the decree and who applied for rateable distribution of the assets. The lower court allowed the petition filed by the respondent holding that he is entitled to rateable distribution of the assets in the Sub-Court. Devakottai. The question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the respondent is entitled to rateable distribution either under Section 63 or under Section 73. C. P. Code. The decree-holders, who in execution of their decrees in more than one court have attached the same property of the judgment-debtor not in the custody of any court can claim the benefit of Section 63. C. P. C. The highest court between the courts in which the property is attached, or, if there is no difference in grade between such courts, the court under whose decree the property was first attached, will decide the claims of the attaching decree-holders. In order to apply Section 63. C. P. C. the same property of the judgment-debtor should have been attached by decree-holders in more than one court. In this case, it is common ground that the respondent herein attached the property in dispute on 23-6-1971, after the property was sold on 14-6-1971, the sale was confirmed on 17-7-1971. The contention of Mr. Rajagopala Iyer, the learned counsel for the respondent, is that, as the auction purchaser who purchased the property on 14-6-1971, had no vested right on the date of sale the subsequent attachment by the respondent after the date of the sale but before its confirma tion would confer right on the respondent end he could enforce his decree against the property. I cannot agree Section 65. C. P. Code provides that, when immoveable property is sold in execution of a decree and such sale has become absolute, the property shall be deemed to have vested in the purchaser from the date when the property is sold and not from the date when the sale becomes absolute. Under Section 65 C. P. C., the title in the property sold in a court sale vests in the purchaser from the date of sale only after the confirmation of the sale, though the confirmation of the sale is on a date subsequent to the date of sale. The validity of a Court sale can be questioned under the provisions of Order 21. Rules 89 to 91. If the

challenge is not successful, the sale is confirmed under Order 21. Rule 92. Civil P. C. and the confirmation of the sale relates back to the date of the sale.

Mr. Rajagopala Iyer referred to the decision in Ramachandra Bhagat v. Mrs. Eva Mitra, (1959) ILR 38 Pat 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document