JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:- Special Leave is granted.

2. This appeal is from a decision of the Madras High Court which denied the appellants claim for setting aside a judicial sale.

3. The facts giving rise to the appeal, as found by the Courts, may be summarised as follows:-

Arumugham respondent 1 obtained money decree on the basis of a promissory note from the Subordinate Judge, Salem, in O . S. No. 388/1968. Sethuramalingam the judgment debtor appealed to the High Court but could not get the decree stayed. He could not furnish security for the decretal amount which was a condition for stay. The decree was put into execution notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal. In February 1973, his two items of properties; (i) three houses and (ii) 10.93 acres of land were brought to court sale. They were purchased by Kuppa Goundar, respondent No. 2 for Rs.7550/and Rs. 15,050/- respectively. In October 1975, the High Court allowed the appeal on merits. The promissory note which was the basis of the suit was disbelieved and rejected. The trial court judgment was set aside and the plaintiff was non-suited. Thereupon the judgment debtor moved the executing court for setting aside the sale. He has alleged inter alia, that the sale was vitiated by material irregularities and properties were deliberately sold for under value. The sale was collusive between decree holder and the auction purchaser. The latter was sambandhi of the former and just a name lender. It was also his contention that since the decree has been reversed, the sale should be nullified and restitution should be ordered. The Court rejected all the contentions relating to material irregularities for want of satisfactory evidence. The Court also held that subsequent reversal of the decree could not be depended upon since the sale has been confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser who was a stranger to the litigation. The judgment debtor appealed to the High Court and succeeded at first instance, before learned single Judge. The learned Judge found in effect that (a) the sale was vitiated by material irregularities resulting in fetching a low price to properties; (b) the decree holder and auction purchaser are close relatives and the sale seems to be collusive; and (c) after the Court sale they seemed to have entered into an agreement for selling the second item of properties for Rs. 96,000/-. With these conclusions the sale was set aside. But on appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court has expressed contrary views on all those points and reversed the decision of learned single Judge.

4. The judgment debtor died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. His legal representatives have now appealed.

5. Mr. A. K. Sen, learned counsel for the appellants raised a number of questions. The important and central issue, however, relates to the underlying jurisdiction of the Court to set aside the confirmed sale upon subsequent reversal or modification of the decree. The question is whether the auction purchasers interest should be protected as against the judgment debtor who has since succeeded in getting rid of the decree against him. There are two authorities of this Court bearing on the question: (i) Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh, (1967) 2 SCR 77 and (ii) Sardar Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai (1982) 2 SCR 186. In Janak Raj case, the appellant was a stranger to the suit in which there was an ex parte money decree. In the execution of the decree, the immovable property of the judgment debtor was brought to sale in which the appellant became the highest bidder. The judgment-debtor filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree and the court allowed it before confirming the sale. Thereupon the judgment-debtor objected to the confirmation of sale on the ground that the auction purchaser was in conspiracy and collusion with the decree-holder and as such not entitled to have the sale confirmed. The executing court, however, overruled the objection and co