The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the entitlement of a private purchaser and the judgment-debtor to apply under Order XXI, Rule 89, and the meaning of the expressions 'person owning such property' and 'owning such property' in the context of the rule.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The decree holder and the Court auction-purchasers are the appellants before us.

2. The application under Order XXI, Rule 89, to the lower Court to set aside the Court auction sale was made jointly by the judgment debtors and persons who purchased the property from them privately after the Court auction sale.

3. The short question for decision in this case is whether a private purchaser from the judgment-debtor after the date of the Court auction sale but before the Court auction sale was confirmed can apply under Order XXI, Rule 89, (old Section 310-A) to have the Court auction sale set aside and if he cannot come in, can the judgment debtor do so.

4. The question may also be formulated in extenso as four separate questions thus :

1. Does such a private purchaser come within the meaning of the expression "person owning such property" in Order XXI, Rule 89? In other words, does the fact of the existence of the unconfirmed Court auction sale prevent the subsequent private purchaser from "owning the property," that is, becoming the owner thereof by such purchase?

2. Even if he is a person "owning the property," as he did not own the property on the date of the Court auction sale, is he disentitled from claiming the benefit of the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 89? In other words, does the expression "owning such property" in Order XXI, Rule 89, means "owning property on the date of the application" or owning it on the date of the Court auction sale?"

3. Further, do the words "by virtue of a title acquired before such sale" in Order XXI, Rule 89, govern the expression "owning such property" or only the expression "holding an interest therein?"

4. Is the judgment-debtor who has sold away his rights after the Court auction sale debarred from applying under Order XXI, Rule 89, because he had no interest on the date of the application and is the private purchaser from him also debarred, because he owned no interest on the date of the Court auction sale or "by virtue of a title acquired before such sale ?"

5. Very learned arguments were advanced by Mr. Chenchiah for the appellants on all these questions and numerous cases were quoted. I am free to admit that many of the arguments were cogent and do raise considerable difficulties and doubt.

6. But this is pre-eminently a question where the principle of stare decisis should be followed and we have got the well-considered decision of this Court in Ananatha Lakshmi Ammal v. Kunnanchankarath Sankmran Nair 18 Ind. Cas. 579 : 24 M.L.J. 205 : (1913 : M.W.N. 101 : 13 M.LT. 123 Benson and Sundara Aiyar, JJ. to the effect that the private purchaser can come in under Order XXI, Rule 89, and that the phrase " by virtue of a title acquired before such sale" does not govern the words" person owning such property," We have also got the decision of this Court in Adapa Subbarayudu v. Tippabhotlallakshmi Narasamma 22 Ind. Cas. 193 : 38 M, 775 : 15 M.L.T. 98 : (1914) M.W.N. 147 : 1 L.W. 59 that the judgment-debtor who has sold away his property cannot apply, as he had no interest in the property on the date of the application.

7. There are, doubtless, observations in Ishar Das v. Asaf Ali Khan 13 Ind. Cas. 184 : 34 A. 186 : 9 A.L.J. 19 and Pandurang Laxman Uphade v. Govinda Dada Uphade 37 Ind. Cas. 211 : 40 B. 657 : 18 Bom. L.R. 571 differing from the opinion expressed in the above decisions of this Court. I may add that those two decisions themselves in Ishar Das v. Asaf Ali Khan 18 Ind. Cas. 579 : 24 M.L.J. 205 : 1913 : M.W.N. 101 : 13 M.LT. 128 and Pandurang Laxman Uphadey. Govinda Dada TJphade 37 Ind. Cas. 211 : 40 B. 657 : 18 Bom.L.R. 571 take different views on some of these points. While Ishar Das v. Asaf Ali Khan 13 Ind. Cas. 184 : 34 A. 186 : 9 A.L.J. 19 takes the rather startling view (formulated in my 4th question above) that neither the judgment-debtor nor the private purchaser is entitled to apply, Pandurang Laxman TJphade v. Govinda Dada Uphade 37 Ind. Cas. 211 : 40 B. 65