Judgment The short point for determination in this second appeal is whether consequent on the declaration that the decree in pursuance of which the sale has taken place has been obtained by fraud, the purchase by a third party, who is the third defendant in this case and who has been found to be a bona fide purchaser without notice of any defect in the decree, would be affected. It is well established that a bona fide purchaser at a sale held under a Court’s decree or order which is subsequently reversed is not affected by the reversal and the remedy by way of restitution does not lie against him. The learned counsel for the appellant however argues relying on the decision in Karuppanna Goundan v. Ponnuthayee1, and Radha Bai v. Jagannadha Naidu2, that the sale may be vitiated on account of the fraud of the third party purchaser and that since the first defendant’s representative character as karnavan has been decided against in the earlier proceedings, the third defendant’s purchase in pursuance of the decree in favour of the second defendant is also vitiated. The decisions referred to deal with questions relating to the validity of Courts sales. The Bench decision in Karuppanna Goundan v. Ponnuthayee1, dealt with an application under Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. Similarly in Radha Bai v. Jagannadha Naidu2, the circumstances under which a sale could be set aside are clearly mentioned and the learned Judge observed that the rule that a bona fide purchaser at a sale in pursuance of a decree which is subsequently reversed is not affected by the reversal is subject to this condition that it would not apply to cases where through a mistake or material irregularity of the Court the property has been sold such as when one property has been attached and another has been sold or where as in this case the property was sold on one date whereas it ought to have been sold on another date. Here again the question turned upon the validity of the sale proceedings by reason of the identical property which was attached not being sold and the date of the actual sale and the date in the sale proclamation varying. Here again the question turned upon the validity of the sale proceedings by reason of the identical property which was attached not being sold and the date of the actual sale and the date in the sale proclamation varying. This again refers to proceedings for setting aside a sale for material irregularity under Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code and as such these decisions have no bearing on the present case where the sale has not been attacked but the contention is that by reason of the fact that the decree in pursuance of which the sale is effected has been declared to be fraudulent the sale in pursuance thereof also becomes invalid. So the decisions have no bearing on the question at issue. The view taken by the lower appellate Court is correct and the second appeal is dismissed with costs. No leave. V.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.