Sale took place on 14.06.1971 and the same was confirmed on 17.07.1971.

This petition is filed by one Veerappa Chettiar, respondent in E.A. No. 479 of 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. No. 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 14th June, 1971. On that day itself a sum of Rs. 1,435 was deposited in Court and the balance of Rs. 4,275 was deposited on 25th June, 1971. The sale was confirmed in favour of the auction-purchaser on 17th July, 1971.

3. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 581 of 1970, against the same judgment-debtor as in O.S. No. 1 of 1970, in the District Munsif’s Court, Melur, and obtained a decree on 18th January, 1971. He got the decree transferred to the District Munsif’s Court, Devakottai, on 10th June, 1971. He took out an execution application and had the property attached on 23rd June, 1971. He applied for rateable distribution of assets in the Sub-Court, Devakottai, on 5th August, 1971.

4. As already stated, after the sale in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 1 of 1970, the sale proceeds, a sum of Rs. 1,425 on 14th June, 1971 and the balance of Rs. 4,275 on 25th June, 1971 were deposited in the Sub-Court, Devakottai, and the sale was confirmed on 17th July, 1971. The auction-purchaser in this case is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 581 of 1970, who got the decree transferred to the District Munsif’s 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 of the Civil Procedure Code. The decree-holders, who in execution of their decree 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, Civil Procedure Code. 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, Civil Procedure Code, 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 23rd June, 1971, after the property was sold on 14th June, 1971. The sale was confirmed on 17th July, 1971. The contention of Mr. Rajagopala Iyer, the learned Counsel for the respondent, is that, as the auction-purchaser who purchased the property on 14th June, 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 confirmation would confer right on the respondent and he could enforce his decree against the property. I cannot agree. Section 65, Civil Procedure Code, provides that, when immovable 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, Civil Procedure Code, 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 in not successful, the sale is confirmed under Order 21, rule 92, Ci