JUDGMENT Bind Basni Prasad, J. - This is an appeal from an order of the learned Civil Judge of Bijnor setting aside an execution sale. The facts are as follows:- On the 5th of October, 1921, on Padam Singh made a mortgage in favour of the decree-holder. In 1932 the decree-holder brought a suit on the foot of the mortgage. As Padam Chand Was dead lakshmi Chand his brother and legal representative was made a party to it. His wife Mst. Bhagirathi who was a done of a part of the mortgaged property was also impleaded. On the 23rd of November, 1932, a preliminary decree for sale under Order 34, Rule 4 of the CPC was passed. On the 24th April of 1934 a final decree for sale under Order 34 Rule 5 was passed for a sum of about Rs. 10,000. An application for he execution of the decree was then made and on the 20th of December, 1938, the Collector of Bijnor sold the property. It appears that after the sale, Mst. Bhagirathi applied for the amendment of the decree and for the reduct on of interest in accordance with the provisions of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned Civil Judge, however, did not grant the instalements. There was an appeal to this Court and it was held that Mst. Bagirathi was entitled to instalments The case was, therefore remanded to the learned Civil Judge to proceed with it according to law. 2. On the 4th of May, 1940, the amount of the decree was reduced and four equal annual instalments were granted. There was a default in the payment of the instalments and then the decree-holder applied to the Collector for the confirmation of the sale which had taken place on the 20th of December, 1938. The sale was confirmed on the 27th of July, 1943, that is to say about four and a half years after the sale. Possession was delivered to the decree-holder on the 30th of August, 1943. On the 10th of August, 1943, Mst. Bhagirathi made an application for the setting aside of the sale. Her contention was that by virtue of Section 17 of the Debt Redemption Act the property was not saleable and so the sale should not have been confirmed. It was contended that without any notice to her the decree-holder got the sale confirmed by the Collector. Bhagirathi made an application for the setting aside of the sale. Her contention was that by virtue of Section 17 of the Debt Redemption Act the property was not saleable and so the sale should not have been confirmed. It was contended that without any notice to her the decree-holder got the sale confirmed by the Collector. The learned Civil Judge has upheld the judgment-debtor's contention and has passed the following order:- The application of Mst. Bhagirathi is, therefore, allowed with costs and it is hereby ordered that the properties in suit were not liable to sale in execution of the mortgage decree. The subsequent proceedings are also void and do not confer any title on the purchasers. To the most the properties can be mortgaged in accordance with the provisions of the Debt Redemption Act. Against this order the decree-holder comes in appeal 3. Section 17 of the U.P. Debt Redemption Act 1940 provides as follows:- Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 16 or in any o her law for the time being in force-(a) the land of an agriculturist, the local rate payable by whom or recoverable from whom does not exceed twenty-five rupees per annum shall not be sold or otherwise transferred in execution of a decree to which this Act applies, nor shall a final decree for foreclosure be passed in respect of such land. 4. From this it is clear that the above provision prohibits only the sale and not the confirmation of a sale which had taken place before the commencement of the Debt Redemption Act. In Sham Singh v. Vir Bhan 1942 23 Lah. 349. the Court interpreted almost similar language of another Act and came to the conclusion that though the sale becomes absolute only when an order confirming it is passed but the property is deemed to have vested in the purchaser from the time when the property was sold and not from the date when the sale became absolute. In the interval between the sale and the confirmation the auction purchaser has acquired substantial interest in the property and this right could not be taken away by supervening legislation unless the Legislature has early expressed itself that it shall be so. In the interval between the sale and the confirmation the auction purchaser has acquired substantial interest in the property and this right could not be taken away by supervening legislation unless the Legislature has early expressed itself that it shall be so. We are clearly of the opinion that the confirmation of an auction sale which had taken place prior to the commencement of the U.P. Debt Redemption Act is not prohibited by Section 17. 5. Learned Counsel for the judgment-debtor contends that as the decree was amended on the 14th of May, 1940, and instalments were granted the auction sale dated the 30th of December, 1938, should be deemed to have lapsed. We do not agree with this. If the decree had been set aside there could have been force in this contention because the very foundation of the execution would have disappeared. In the present case, however, the position is quite different. Only the amount of the decree was reduced and the judgment-debtor was given an opportunity to pay up the decree in certain instalments. From the petition of objection filed by the Respondent it will be seen that the High Court only stayed the confirmation of the sale. The order dated the 4th of May, 1940, by which instalments were granted did not provide that the sale dated 20th of December, 1938, shall be set aside. It is clear that the intention was that the confirmation of the sale was to be stayed and that the sale which had already taken place was a kind of security for the decree holder and in the event of any default by the judgment-debtor the sale was to be confirmed. The property belonging to Mst. Bhagirati was as it would appear from her own petition sold for a sum of Rs. 800 only and it is not alleged that when she fell in default any sum less than Rs. 800 was due from her. We are of opinion that the sale dated 20th of December, 1938, was valid and was not in any way affected by the subsequent order amending the decree or by the grant of instalments. The sale could be validly confirmed in the event of a default by the judgment debtor in the payment of instalments. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge setting aside the sale is, therefore, untenable. 6. The sale could be validly confirmed in the event of a default by the judgment debtor in the payment of instalments. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge setting aside the sale is, therefore, untenable. 6. The appeal is allowed with costs. The order passed by the lower Court is set aside and the sale dated 20th of December, 1938, is confirmed.