The accuracy of the description of the property in the sale proclamation and certificate is crucial for the validity of a court auction sale, and the judgment debtors have limited grounds to challenge the sale after the proclamation is over.

The order passed in EA.No.76 of 2007 in EP.No.31 of 2005 in O.S.No.172 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, is under challenge in this revision. EA.No.76 of 2007 was filed by the Action Purchaser of Saravana Theatre, Gudiyatham, in EP.No.31 of 2005 in O.S.No.172 of 1999. The said EA.No.76 of 2007 was filed for delivery of the property scheduled to EP.No.31 of 2005 viz., Saravana theatre. Since the petitioner in EA.No.76 of 2007 could not take delivery, he filed EA.No.154 of 2007 for break open to effect delivery, which was ordered by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham. EA.155 of 2007 was filed in EA.No.76 of 2007 for police help, which was also allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham. Against the order of delivery in EA.No.76 of 2007, the judgment debtors in O.S.No.172 of 1999 have preferred this revision.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, who would contend that under the proclamation of sale dated 212. 2006, the property intended to be sold is in S.No.70/1 and the property sold under the Court auction sold dated 21. 2007 is also in S.No.70/1, but the Auction Purchaser cannot take delivery of S.No.70/2 which is not the subject matter of the sale. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners M/s.Saravana Theatre was attached before the judgment for realization of the decree amount in O.S.No.172 of 1999 is in S.No.70/2 and not in S.No.70/1. According to the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners even as per the evidence of R.W.1 -VAO, Saravana Theatre is only in S.No.70/2 and it is not in S.No.70/1, but the decree holder in EP.31 of 2005 had scheduled Saravana Theatre as the property situate in S.No.70/1, wherein Saravana theatre does not exist.

3. The learned senior counsel Mr.T.V.Ramanujam appearing for the revision petitioners relying on AIR 1978 SC 1073 (Mohini Mohan Chakravarty VS. The State of West Bengal and another), contended that since Saravana Theatre is situate in S.No.70/2, on the basis of the sale certificate for Saravana Theatre executed by the Court in respect of S.No.70/1, the respondents cannot take delivery of Saravan Theatre. The facts of the said case in brief are as follows:-

"Official Receiver had obtained a decree for eviction against K, who had contended that the tenancy in favour of K is permanent one, she is not liable to be evicted from the property. Further it was contented that in execution of money portion of the said decree Official Receiver sought to realise the amount of attachment and sale of Ks immovable property comprise in certificate stands on Ks loan. The said premises was attached and sold. After confirmation of sale, the sale certificate was issued at the time of said sale, the right, title and interest of K in the suit land was subject matter of the aforesaid appeal. Objections under Section 47 were dismissed. K filed suit against R which was dismissed but in appeal the High Court directed that on Ks depositing the value of the property, the same would become her property. On appeal to Supreme Court, it has been held by the Honourable Apex Court as follows:-

"in view of the description of the property in the schedule and in the application of R for sale of the immovable properties standing on Ks land, the sale certificate could not be construed as conferring any right, title or interest on R with respect to permanent tenancy rights of K in suit land which was underneath and appurtenant to the structures.

4. Relying on the dictum in 1995(3) SCC 579 (Neni Gopal Paul Vs. T.Prasad Singh and others), the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would contend that appellate Court or Supeme Court has power to take suo motu judicial notice of the illegality and set aside the sale even after expiry of limitation period prescribed therefor. The short facts of the said case is that:-

"In suit No.2 of 1966 filed by the United Bank of I