ORDER N.N. Mithal, J. - This is judgment-debtors' second appeal against dismissal of his objections under S. 47 C.P.C. against sale of his property in pursuance of the money decree passed against him. 2. The facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal may be stated as under : Respondent No. 1 is the decree-holder who had obtained a money decree for approximately Rs. 15,000/- against the appellant. Respondent No. 2 is the auction purchaser. Total land, which belonged to the appellant was three bighas seven biswas and, as such, he came within the category of a small farmer within the meaning of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977. The property was put to auction on 10th May, 1974 and the sale was confirmed on 17th of Jan 1975. By an order dated 28th of Aug. 1975 the decree was ordered to be satisfied. U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 was enforced from 10th Oct. 1975. The object of this Act was to provide for moratorium on recovery of debts from the landless agricultural labourers, small and marginal farmers and some others as a temporary measure for one year. The contention of the appellant is that on the enforcement of this Act the proceedings in execution ought to have been stayed and thereafter when U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977 was enforced his debts should have been wiped out or at least scaled down in accordance with the provisions of that Act. 3. The controversy in the present appeal, therefore, revolves on two questions, one, what is the effect of confirmation of auction sale and secondly whether even after confirmation of sale on 17th Jan. 75 and recording of satisfaction of the decree by an order dated 27th July. 75 the provisions of Section 3 of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 would still apply and, if so, to what extent? 4. As for the, first question once the property is attached in execution of the decree and is put to auction and the auction sale is confirmed under Or. 21 R. 92 the sale in favour of the auction purchaser becomes absolute. The auction money then becomes payable to,the decree-holder or such other person as may be held entitled thereto. 4. As for the, first question once the property is attached in execution of the decree and is put to auction and the auction sale is confirmed under Or. 21 R. 92 the sale in favour of the auction purchaser becomes absolute. The auction money then becomes payable to,the decree-holder or such other person as may be held entitled thereto. According to Section 65, C. P. C. when on confirmation of the sale it becomes absolute the vesting of the property in the purchaser relates back to the date of auction sale. S. 65 reads as under :- "Where immoveable property is sold in execution of a decree and such sale has become absolute the property shall be deemed to have vested in the purchaser from the time when the property is sold and not from the time when the sale becomes absolute." 5. This section must be read along with O. 21 R. 84 onwards which deal with the sale of immovable property in execution of decree. However the provision really relevant for our purposes is to be found in R. 92 which runs as under : Section 92. Sale when to become absolute or be set aside-(l) Where no application is made under Rule 89, Rule 90 or Rule 91, or where such application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. Provided that, where any property is sold in execution of a decree pending the final disposal of any claim to, or any objection to the attachment of. such property, the court shall not confirm such sale until the final disposal of such claim or objection. (2) Where such application is made and allowed and where, in the case of an application under Rule 89, the deposit required by that rule is made within thirty days from the date of sale (or in cases where the amount deposited under Rule 89 is found to be deficient owing to any clerical or arithmetical mistake on the part of the depositor and such deficiency has been made good within such time as may be fixed by the Court, the Court shall make an order setting aside the sale). Provided that no order shall be made unless notice of the application has been given to all persons affected thereby. Provided that no order shall be made unless notice of the application has been given to all persons affected thereby. (3) No suit to set aside an order made under this rule shall be brought by any person against whom such order is made. (4) Where a third party challenges the judgment debtor's title by filing a suit against the auction-purchaser the decree- holder and the judgment-debtor shall be necessary parties to the suit. (5) If the suit referred to in sub-rule (4) is decreed, the court shall direct the decree- holder to refund the money to the auction- purchaser, and where such an order is passed the execution proceeding in which the sale had been held shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be revived at the stage at which the sale was ordered." 6. According to sub-clause (1) of this rule if no application under Rule 89, 90 or 91 is moved or where one is made but is disallowed the court shall make an order confirming the sale and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. 7. Read with Section 65 this provision will make the confirmation of sale effective from the date of auction sale itself. 8. According to Sri K. M. Sinha, even when the sale becomes absolute until a sale certificate is granted to the auction-purchaser the title does not pass on to the purchaser and the judgment-debtor is entitled to question the same. For this submission he banks heavily on an observation of Norris J. in Prem Chandpal v. Purnima Devi, (1888) ILR 15 Cal 546 where the learned judge while dealing with provisory of Section 316 of C. P. C. 1882 expressed himself as under : "It has been urged that, although the section says that "the certificate shall bear the date of the confirmation of the sale, and so far as regards the parties to the suit, and persons claiming through or under them, the title to the property sold shall vest in the purchaser from the date of such certificate, and not before", yet as regards third parties the property vests in the purchaser from the date of sale. No doubt the Legislature does not introduce the words "third parties" but if, as regards the parties to the suit and persons claiming through or under them the title of the purchaser is not to be considered complete, nor the property to vests in him until the confirmation, we see no reason for holding that, as regards third parties, the title of the auction-purchaser is complete, and the property vested in him before the date of confirmation of sale. If this view is correct, it seems to us that the plaintiffs husband's rights as mortgagee were kept alive and remained in existence until the property vested in him by virtue of the granting of the sale certificate, and that between the 17th August, the date of the sale, and the 18th December, the date of confirmation of sale his rights as mortgagee were all in existence and the mortgage lien fully preserved in him." Clearly the said case is not applicable under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 where the language of this provision is substantially different. 9. In Sorimuthu Pillai v. Muthu Krishna Pillai, AIR 1933 Mad 598 a learned single Judge of that court gave a very detailed and elaborate judgment and after referring to the various legislative changes, held that the sale of immoveable property would become absolute after the sale had been confirmed by the court. Our own High Court in Mst. Ram Sri v. Jai Lal, AIR 1947 All 171 held that the certificate of sale is no doubt a document of title but the vesting of title in the auction-purchaser is not made dependent on the issue of sale certificate. It is the confirmation of sale that passed title to the auction-purchaser. Similarly in Nidhpal Sharma v. Union of India, AIR 1966 All 360 a full Bench of our own High Court was discussing the provisions of S. 65 and O. 21 R. 94 C. P. C. and in that connection observed as under :- "Provision of Section 65 read with O. 21 R. 94 C. P. C. makes it clear that the auction-purchaser has no absolute right of ownership or title to immoveable property sold till the confirmation of sale and on confirmation, that it, the sale becoming absolute, the auction-purchaser acquires title from the date of the sale." 10. The position of law was further crystallised in Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1967 SC 608 . In that case an ex parte decree was obtained and in execution of the decree the judgment-debtors property was put for sale. The auction-purchaser applied for confirmation of the sale but before that the J. D. had already applied for setting aside the ex parte decree. He applied to the court that the sale be not confirmed and the proceedings be stayed. The objection of the J. D. was overruled and the sale was confirmed, which was maintained throughout when the matter came before the Supreme Court it considered a large number of authorities on the subject and held that the sale must be confirmed notwithstanding the reversal of the decree. It was also held that the title of the purchaser related back to the date of sale and not to the date of confirmation. 11. Thus the position of law that emerges is that when property is sold in execution of the decree it does not vest in the auction-purchaser until it is confirmed. But, once it is confirmed and becomes absolute the title of the auction-purchaser relates back to the date of the auction sale. So long as the sale has not been confirmed or becomes absolute in view of S. 65 it remains incomplete and legally ineffective so as to pass on good title to the auction-purchaser. Retrospective vesting of title envisaged by Section 65 takes place only on confirmation of auction sale and then the purchaser's title become perfect w.e.f. the date of auction. This title, which the auction-purchaser derives is not from the sale certificate which is issued under R. 94 of O. 21 but from the confirmation of the auction sale by the Court. The mere fact that the sale certificate may have been issued after confirmation of sale cannot affect the purchaser's title from the date of auction sale. Even the auction-purchaser's right to the delivery of possession accrues only from the date of its confirmation and not from either date of sale or the date of sale certificate. Sale certificate is but a document to evidence the fact of auction sale and its confirmation by the court and by itself does not convey any title. Even the auction-purchaser's right to the delivery of possession accrues only from the date of its confirmation and not from either date of sale or the date of sale certificate. Sale certificate is but a document to evidence the fact of auction sale and its confirmation by the court and by itself does not convey any title. In fact it recites only those facts which have preceded the issue of sale certificate including confirmation of auction sale by the Court. There are innumerable rulings of various High Courts to support the view that I am taking and I hardly think it proper to mention the same here. 12. Therefore, when once the sale is confirmed it becomes absolute and becomes effective from the date of auction sale (See also Chiman Lal Narsi Bhai Patel v. Amar Lal Chhotalal Shah, AIR 1974 Guj 218 . 13. In view of the legal position discussed above, the auction sale dated 10-5-74 became absolute on 28-7-75 the decree also stood satisfied, what then remained to be done? According to Sri K. M. Sinha, unless certificate of sale was issued, no delivery of possession could take place and as such the appellant would be protected to that extent. The argument does not appear to be based on reason for we have to see only the right of the person who executes the decree and not of a person who is the auction-purchaser. After a sale has been confirmed only something in the nature of ministerial act remains to be done, by issuing sale certificate and in pursuance thereof to deliver possession to the purchaser. This has nothing to do with the execution of the decree at the instance of the decree holder. 14. Even under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 moratorium was granted only in respect of execution or other proceedings for or relating to the recovery of any debts against a protected debtor. Even if the appellant was deemed to be protected debtor within the meaning of Section 2(1) of that Act the proceedings pending at that time in execution could not be said to be an execution or other proceedings for or relating to the recovery of debt. That stage was already over as the property had been attached, sold in auction and auction sale confirmed much before the Act was enforced vesting an absolute title in the auction-purchaser. That stage was already over as the property had been attached, sold in auction and auction sale confirmed much before the Act was enforced vesting an absolute title in the auction-purchaser. The judgment-debtor had no title left in the property thereafter and there could be no execution proceeding against him in that respect. The court below has rightly held that on the confirmation of sale the decree stood satisfied before the U.P. Act No. 51 of 1975 came into force and, therefore, any proceeding taken by the auction-purchaser thereafter for getting possession over the property sold to him could not be said to be a proceeding either for or relating to the recovery of the debt. Relationship of debtor and creditor between the decree-holder and judgment-debtor came to an end after the decree stood satisfied on payment of the money due thereunder. 15. Even if it is admitted that the appellant was a debtor within the meaning of Section 2 of U.P. Act 4 of 1977 only two consequences will follow on the enforcement of the Act and they are contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. According to S. 4 a debt due from a debtor covered by the Act would stand discharged if his annual household income does not exceed Rs. 2,400/- and in case of those whose income exceeds the above figure the same shall be scaled down to some extent as provided in that section. Section 5 then provides for consequences of discharge of debt on the pending proceedings. According to it any debt payable, notwithstanding any decree etc. against him, shall cease to be a debt from the date of discharge and no proceedings for the recovery of such debt would thereafter be entertained by any civil court. As for the Pending proceedings, on the date of commencement of the Act for the recovery of debt, the same shall abate. The position, however, appears to be that in the present case on the date of commencement of the Act no proceeding was pending against the debtor for the recovery of the debt, the sale having already been confirmed on 17-1-75. The only proceeding pending at the time of commencement of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977 was only by the auction-purchaser for putting him in possession over the property pursuant to confirmation of the auction sale in his favour. 16. The only proceeding pending at the time of commencement of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1977 was only by the auction-purchaser for putting him in possession over the property pursuant to confirmation of the auction sale in his favour. 16. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. The parties, shall, however, bear their own costs in the appeal.