The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner failed to prove the validity of the sale agreement and subsequent payment and possession of the property, and the Court upheld the validity of the attachment and the Court auction sale.

1. The petitioner third party in R.E.A.No.646/94 having failed in his attempt to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 72 r/w 90, C.P.C. concurrently, before the Courts below has preferred this C.R.P.

2. The same petitioner third party, in R.E.A.No.412 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, having failed in his attempt, concurrently before the Courts below, to declare the attachment dated 19.8.1993 on the petition mentioned property; is illegal, void, not binding on the petitioner, has preferred this C.M.S.A., challenging the orders of the Courts below.

3. The first respondent in both the cases as plaintiff, has filed the suit O.S.No.19/93 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem, for recovery of certain amount against the second respondent/defendant. The second respondent/ defendant remained ex parte , resulting a decree in O.S.No.19/93 as prayed for. In pursuance of the decree obtained by the first respondent, she filed an execution petition against the judgment debtor in R.E.P.No.209/93, in which the petition mentioned property has been attached on 19.8.1993. In the execution proceedings also, even after the attachment, since the judgment debtor/second respondent has not paid the amount, the property was ordered to be sold in the Court auction and accordingly in the Court auction held on 16.6.1994, the third respondent, who is none else than the husband of the decree holder, appears to have purchased the property though the decree holder had obtained permission to bid and set off.

4. The appellant/petitioner/third party, claiming right over the property attached, which was subsequently sold in the Court auction, on the basis of an agreement dated 2.7.1992 in his favour said to have been executed by the owner of the property viz., the judgment debtor, had filed R.E.A.No.646/1994, to set aside the sale, as if the Court auction sale was proceeded by collusive decree, which cannot have any valid effect and that the decree holder having obtained permission to bid and set off, has not purchased the property, whereas the third respondent has purchased the property, violating the permission, which is an abuse of process of law, that there was no proper proclamation for sale and that the entire sale proceedings has been done irregularly, which affected the interest of the petitioner in the property materially. Before that he had filed an application in R.E.A.No.972/94 to declare that the attachment dated 19.8.1993 in respect of the suit property is illegal and void, since on the date of the attachment, the judgment debtor has no saleable interest, in view of the fact, he had agreed to sell the property in his favour by an agreement dated 2.7.1992.

5. The trial Court, considering the common interest involved in both the cases, as well as the fact that the subject matter is one and the same, tried both the cases jointly and rendered a common order on 18.1.1999. Before the trial Court, the agreement said to have been executed by the owner of the property dated 2.7.1992, is exhibited as Ex.P1. It seems, in respect of the same property, the original owner, had executed an agreement on 30.3.1992 in favour of Arayee, which is exhibited as B.1. Admittedly, the property was attached on 19.8.1993 i.e. subsequent to the alleged sale agreement in favour of the petitioner/appellant on 2.7.1992. Though the agreement was anterior in point of time to the attachment, the evidence revealed as per the conclusion of the learned District Munsif, that Ex.A1 agreement was not proved as true and genuine one, which should follow, that will not prevail over the attachment. Thus concluding, approving the Court auction sale also once again, he dismissed both the applications filed by the third party petitioner, which were challenged by the petitioner in A.S.No.33/99 and C.M.A.No.7/99 on the file of the District Judge, Salem.

6. The II Addl. District Judge, Salem upon consideration, felt that the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge has not co