A person claiming property by title paramount to the judgement-debtor cannot file objections under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

R.N.MITTAL, J.

1. This Letters Patent appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 19th Jan., 1978, of the learned single Judge.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the Rohtak Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder), obtained an award dated 10th May, 1965, against Badh Khalsa Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Badh Khalsa, Sonepat hereinafter referred to as the judgement-debtor), for the recovery of a sum of Rupees 2,31,171.87. The award was executed by the decree-holder in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Sonepat. In execution of the decree, the land in dispute was sold by public auction on 2nd Oct., 1970. The State Bank of India, Sonepat (hereinafter called the Objector), filed objections under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., challenging the validity of the sale. The objector, in order to prove its locus standi to file objections, inter alia pleaded that the land had been sold by the judgement-debtor to one Joginder Singh prior to the making of the award, who created an equitable mortgage in its favour by deposit of title deeds. It challenged the sale on various grounds, which are not relevant for the decision of the present appeal.

3. The objection petition was contested by the decree-holder, who controverted the pleas of the objector and inter alia pleaded that the objector had no locus standi to file the objection petition. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether sale is liable to be set aside for the grounds alleged in the petition filed by the objector State Bank of India?

2. Whether objector has locus standi to file this objection petition?

3. Relief.

The executing Court treated issue No.2 as a preliminary issue and held that the objector had no locus standi to file the objection petition. Consequently, it dismissed the same. The objector came up in appeal to this Court. The learned single Judge affirmed the judgement of the executing Court and dismissed the appeal. This Letters Patent appeal arises against the said judgement.

4. The only question that arises for determination is whether a person, who claims the property by title paramount to the judgement-debtor, can file objections under O.21, R.90 of the Code. In the present case, admittedly, the Code before its amendment by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, applies. Rule 90 reads as under :-

"90. Application to set aside sale on ground of irregularity or fraud.- (1) Where any immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree, the decree-holder, or any person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the Court to set aside the safe on the ground of a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it : Provided that no sale shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity or fraud unless upon the facts proved the Court is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud."

5. The contention of Mr. Chhibber is that a person who claims a title paramount to the judgement-debtor is included in the words whose interests are affected by the sale. In support of his contention, he places reliance on Sheo Prasad V/s. Hira Lal, (1890) ILR 12 All 440 (FB), Abdul Gani V/s. A.M. Dunne, (1893) ILR 20 Cal 418, Mt. Mehr Bano V/s. Sher Mohammad, AIR 1936 Lah 969, All India Railwaymen s Benefit Fund Ltd., Nagpur V/s. Ramchand Hemraj Maheshri, AIR 1939 Nag 179, Jagat Narayan Singh V/s. Khartar Sah, AIR 1941 PC 45, T.S. Sailappan V/s. Subbiah Pillai, AIR 1963 Mad 156 (FB) and Saraswathi Ammal V/s. Manickavasaka Reddiar, AIR 1975 Mad 147.

6. On the other hand, Ch. Ram Sarup has strenuously argued that the aforesaid words include only those persons who are claiming under the judgement-debtor and not claiming a title paramount to him. To fortify his argument, he cited Asmutunnissa Begum V/s. Ashruff Ali, (1888) ILR 15 Cal 4