1. The present appeal has been filed as against the fair and decretal order dated 03.01.2003 in R.E.A.No.1408 of 1996 in R.E.P.No.340 of 1994 in O.S.No.255 of 1989 on the file of the Sub-Court, Namakkal, dismissing the application filed by the appellant herein under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC r/w Section 151 of CPC, to set aside the auction sale of the ancestral property of the appellant's husband conducted on 18.09.1996.

2. The deceased 1st appellant herein-Pavayammal, who is the mother of the deceased 3rd respondent herein, is a third party in the execution proceedings filed in R.E.P.No.340 of 1994 in the Original Suit No.255 of 1989. Originally this appeal was filed by the 1st appellant-Pavayammal as against the respondents 1 to 3 herein. Pending the appeal, since the 1st appellant-Pavayammal died on 23.03.2005, her legal heir Selvarani was brought on record as 2nd appellant. Since the 1st respondent died, his legal heirs were brought on record as respondents 4 to 6. Similarly, since the 3rd respondent died, his legal heirs were brought on record as respondents 7 & 8.

3. The 1st respondent herein-Thangammal (deceased) had filed a suit in O.S.No.255 of 1989 on the file of the Sub-Court, Namakkal, for recovery of a sum of Rs.35,430/- as against the deceased 3rd respondent herein viz., T.N.Seeragarayan and one Natarajan, husband of the 2nd respondent herein and the said suit was decreed on 22.02.1994 as against the said Natarajan (husband of the 2nd respondent herein) and the 3rd respondent herein (son of the 1st appellant Pavayammal).

4. Subsequently, the 1st respondent herein filed execution petition in R.E.P.No.340 of 1984 seeking to bring four items of immovable property belonging to the 3rd respondent herein/judgment debtor for sale. The Executing Court had ordered for bringing Item-2 property measuring 20½ acres alone for sale and deleted the other three items of properties. Subsequently, in the auction sale conducted on 18.09.1996, the 2nd respondent herein ie., the wife of another Judgment debtor viz. Natarajan, has purchased the property for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-.

5. Thereafter, as a third party, the deceased 1st appellant herein Pavayammmal, mother of the deceased 3rd respondent/judgment debtor filed an application on 15.10.1996, i.e, within a month's time from the date of the auction sale, under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC, in R.E.A.No.1408 of 1996 to set aside the auction sale dated 18.09.1996, contending that the suit property is not exclusive property of the 3rd respondent/Judgment debtor alone and the suit property is an ancestral property. It is the case of the deceased 1st appellant that she and her two daughters along with the 3rd respondent/her son are having equal shares in the suit property and each one is having 1/4th share in the suit property. The 3rd respondent/Judgment Debtor has no right or salable interest in respect of whole suit property. The property which was sold in the auction sale conducted on 18.09.1996 is a land measuring to an extend of 20.5 acres worth about Rs.25 lakhs. But, the said property was brought for sale for the lesser amount of Rs.56,998.75/-claimed in the execution petition. The respondents have colluded together and brought the property for sale including the share of the deceased 1st appellant/third party, with a view to cheat her. The suit property was already mortgaged with the Canara Bnak by the deceased 3rd respondent/judgment debtor towards the loan availed by him. Since the deceased 3rd respondent/judgment debtor failed to pay the loan amount, a suit in O.S.No.337 of 1988 came to be filed by the Canara Bank and pursuant to the decree passed in the said suit, the Canara Bank filed an execution petition in R.E.P.No.278 of 1992. When the deceased 1st appellant came to know about these facts, she had filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.186/1993 before the District Munsif, Rasipuram, as against her son ( deceased 3rd respondent/judgment debtor) and her two daughters, f