( 1 ) THE question raised in this petition is whether the executing Court before comirming the sale, is competent to examine its validity with reference to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 196l (shortly caued 'the Act' ). ( 2 ) THE facts are these: In OS. 746 of 1962, respondent-1 obtained a decree in execution of which certain agricultural lands were brought to sale on 17th August 1972. Respondent-2 purchased the same. Challenging the validity of the sale, the petitioner filed an application under Or. XXI, rule 90 of the CPC to set aside the sale on the ground that it was vitiaed by irregularities. That application was dismissed. Before the sale was confirmed, he filed another objection stating that the sale was void inasmuch as it was in contravention of Ss. 79a and 80 of the Act. The learned Munsiff without going into the merits of that contention, held that the Court should ccnhrm the sale after the application under Or. XXI, rule 90 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been preferred under Section 115 of the CPC. ( 3 ) MR. Venkanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the executing Court must examine the validity of the sale with reference to Secs. 79a and 80 of the Act and the dismissal of the application under order XXI, Rule 90 is no bar for such investigation. ( 4 ) SEC. 79a, in substance, provides that no person or a joint family which has an assured annual income of Rs. 12,000 from sources other than agricultural lands, shall be entitled to acquire any land, whether as land owner, landlord or tenant, or mortgagee. S. 80 states that the sale in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist is invalid. It also provides that a sale in favour of an agriculturist who holds as an owner or a tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant, lands which exceed the ceiling limits, shall be invalid. After closely perusing the provisions of those sections, I do not think that I can accede to the contention. In chayappa Santammappa v. Md Hasan, 1964 1 Myslj. 166. similar question relating to the validity of a sale with reference to S. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, came for consideration. After closely perusing the provisions of those sections, I do not think that I can accede to the contention. In chayappa Santammappa v. Md Hasan, 1964 1 Myslj. 166. similar question relating to the validity of a sale with reference to S. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, came for consideration. The said S. 63 is analogous to S. 80 (1) of the Act. While dealing with the said question, Somnath Iyer, J, speaking for the Bench observed:"-What it declares is that a sale to one who is not an agriculturist is invalid. The question therefore whether a sale is or is not invalid under S. G3 can arise if there is a completed sale and that question could not have therefore arisen in an application under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. "the above principles have been reiterated in mutteppa v. Sardar Bhimappa Giriappa Desai, 1966 1 Myslj. 679, and extended even to a matter falling under the Karnataka Land Reforms. Act, 1961 in h. N. Vinayaka v. Firm of H. Venkatasastry and Sons, 1975) 2 Karlj. 12. In view of these cases, it must be stated that the executing Court cannot examine the question whether the sale is in contravention of S3. 79a and 80 of the Act, since the sale is not completed before it is confirmed. It is only a completed sale which could be challenged as being in contravention of the provisions of the Act and not the sale which has not yet been confirmed. ( 5 ) INCIDENTALLY, I may mention that the petitioner is not without any remedy for the redressal of his grievances. He may have recourse to the remedy provided under Ss. 82 and 83 of the Act. ( 6 ) IN the result, this petition fails and is dismissed, but no costs. --- *** --- .