JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Plaintiff is the Appellant against a reversing judgment. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The decree-holder (Defendant No. 1) levied Execution Case No. 11 of 1953 against the judgment-debtor (Defendant No. 2). The disputed property was attached on 10-2-1954. On 23-2-1954 Defendant no. 2 applied to the Court under Order XXI, Rule 83, CPC for permission to raise funds by private sale of the attached property. Permission was granted by an order (ext. 3) dated 8-3-1954 which was to the following effect: "I am satisfied that part of the amount of the decree may be raised by private sale of a portion of the attached property as mentioned in the petition. The judgment debtor would be granted a certificate authorising him to make the proposed sale within one month from this date. It is directed that all money payable under the proposed sale shall be paid into Court and not to the judgment debtor and the said sale shall not become final until the amount is deposited and the sale is confirmed by the Court." : On 13-10-1954 Plaintiff purchased the disputed property for Rs. 223/- under a registered sale deed ext. 1 and the entire amount was paid to the decree-holder?s lawyer with a receipt under Ext. 2. On 20-2-1956 the decree-holder put the disputed property to sale and Defendant No. 3 purchased it in Court auction. 2. The facts are not disputed. The short question to be answered is if the Plaintiff acquired a valid title under Ext. 1, the sale deed dated 13-10-1954. If the Plaintiff acquired valid title thereunder, Defendant No. 3 cannot get any further title under his auction purchase. 3. Order XXI, Rule 83, CPC may be quoted in extensor: "83. (1) Where an order for the sale of immovable property has been made, if the judgment-debtor can satisfy the Court that there is reason to believe that the amount of the decree may be raised by the mortgage or lease or private sale of such property, or some part thereof, or of any other immovable property of the judgment debtor, the Court may, on his application, postpone the sale of the property comprised in the Order for sale on such terms and for such period as it thinks proper, to enable him to raise the amount. (2) In such case the Court shall grant a certificate to the judgment-debtor authorising him within a period to be mentioned therein, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 64, to make the proposed mortgage, lease or sale: Provided that all moneys payable under such mortgage, lease or sale shall be paid, not to the judgment-debtor, but, save in so far as a decree-holder is entitled to set off such money under the provisions of Rule 72 into Court: Provided also that no mortgage, lease or sale under this rule shall become absolute until it has been confirmed by the Court. x x x x It is unnecessary to go into the other controversial questions arising in this case It would be sufficient to say that Ext. 1 was not confirmed by the Court under Order XXI, Rule 83, Sub-rule (2) Second Proviso. Until confirmation no title passes to the Plaintiff. Even till now there has been no confirmation. The result was that the attached property continued under attachment in the eye of law until confirmation of the sale in favour of the Plaintiff. It was within the jurisdiction of the Court to put the property to auction sale at the instance of decree-holder. As the Plaintiff acquired no subsisting title under Ext. I, the suit is misconceived.