Judgment :- 1. This appeal is against the judgment of our learned brother Madhavan Nair, J. in Second Appeal No. 1033 of 1958. The matter arises out of an application filed by the judgment-debtors (defendants 7 & 8) to set aside a court-sale under the provisions of 0.21 R.90 of C. P. C. The auction-purchaser is the appellant before us. The sale was held on 2711953 and was confirmed on 26 21953. The sale certificate was issued on 12 61953. The application under 0.21, R.90 of the C. P. C. was filed on 28 71953. The trial court held that the petitioners, namely, defendants 7 and 8 had the requisite notice under 0.21 R.69 but that there was violation of 0.21, R.66(1) of the C. P. C. in that the adjournment of the date fixed for sale was without the leave of court and that therefore sale was void. In the result, it allowed the application. On appeal, the lower appellate court was of the opinion, that the violation of the provisions of 0.21, R.69(1) of the C. P. C. was only an irregularity, and not an illegality, that the sale was therefore not void, and that the application filed under 0.21, R.90 of the C. P. C. was barred by limitation. In the Second Appeal, our learned brother Madhavan Nair, J. was of the view that if the adjournment of the date fixed for the sale was without the leave of court, the sale would be void and remanded the matter to the lower appellate court for investigation of the question, as to whether the adjournment was with the leave of court or not. Hence this appeal. 2. The facts necessary to understand the points in controversy are these: The sale stood posted to 151 1953. That was a holiday. It is seen that the sale was adjourned to 1711953 and then to 19 11953. There was no sitting on the 19th. It is seen that the sale was adjourned to 2711953 on which date the sale took place, as noticed already. 3. That was a holiday. It is seen that the sale was adjourned to 1711953 and then to 19 11953. There was no sitting on the 19th. It is seen that the sale was adjourned to 2711953 on which date the sale took place, as noticed already. 3. On the above facts it was argued on behalf of the judgment-debtors, that the adjournment of the sale from the 15th to 17th, from the 17th to 19th and from the 19th to 27th were all without the leave of court, and that therefore there was contravention of the provisions of 0.21, R.69(1) of the C. P. C. The argument was met on behalf of the appellant in two ways. Firstly, it was contended that there was a presumption that official and judicial acts are properly performed and that therefore it must be inferred that the adjournments in this case were by the presiding officer. Secondly it was argued that even assuming that there was a contravention of the provisions of 0.21, R.69(1) of the C. P. C. the same would only be an irregularity and not an illegality and therefore the sale would not be void. 4. Regarding the first point, we are of the opinion that the adjournments having been properly recorded in the B diary, which we have perused, it must be presumed that these adjournments were made with the leave of the presiding officer. It appears to us that the leave of the presiding officer must be deemed to be implicit in these adjournments which are duly recorded in the B diary, especially when the sale was subsequently held on the adjourned date, viz. 2711953 in the court premises. We are therefore of the opinion that there has been no contravention of the provisions of 0.21, R.69(1) of the C. P. C. and that the sale was held after proper adjournments with the leave of court. 5. We are further of the view, that even assuming that there has been a contravention of the provisions of 0.21, R.69(1) of the C. P. C. the same would only be an irregularity and not an illegality, and the sale held in such circumstances would not be void. There is sufficient authority for this proposition. It is enough to refer to the decision in Jogendra Nath Bhattacharyya v. Sheikh Nabi Newaj (A. I. R.1938 Cal. There is sufficient authority for this proposition. It is enough to refer to the decision in Jogendra Nath Bhattacharyya v. Sheikh Nabi Newaj (A. I. R.1938 Cal. 699) following the decision of the Privy Council in Gajrajmati Teorain v. Saiyid Akbar Husain (34 Indian Appeals 37) and also to the decision in Vasudeva Kavu Patteri v. Mani Naicka (A. I. R.1953 Madras 683). The Privy Council decision was rendered with respect to the provisions of S.291 of the old Civil Procedure Code corresponding to 0.21, R.69 of the present Code. We are in agreement with the principle of these decisions. 6. In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned judge and restore that of the learned Additional District Judge. 7. Counsel for respondents submitted that his clients are entitled to apply under the provisions of S.22 of the Kerala Act 31 of 1958. We express no opinion on the question. It would be open to the respondents, if so advised and so entitled to apply under the provisions of the Act. The said application would be considered and dealt with on its merits. Allowed.