JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a Civil Revision No. 4311 of 1998 filed by the Punjab Financial Corporation (hereinafter called "the Corporation") and at the first instance it was filed against M/s Baba Deep Singh Ice Factory and Cold Storage, Adampur Doaba, District Jalandhar (Punjab) as is evident from the first memo of parties but lateron the Corporation realised its mistake that it ought to have filed the revision against Shri Satish Kumar and Union Bank of India. Resultantly, the amended Memo of parties was also filed in this court on 13.1.2000. Thus, it will be treated as if the Corporation has filed the revision against Satish Kumar and Union Bank of India. 2. This revision has been directed against the order dated 26.11.1997 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar who accepted the objections of Shri Satish Kumar and declared that the application filed by the decree-holder/Corporation for the delivery of the possession is not maintainable and the same was dismissed vide the impugned order. The learned Executing Court also held that he is not disposing of the objections of Union Bank of India in these proceedings because Union Bank of India has already filed a separate execution and, therefore, its objection that a valid title does not pass to Shri Satish Kumar, would be adjudicated by that Court. Moreover, Satish Kumar has also filed a separate suit for declaration regarding his ownership of the disputed property and the same is still pending in which both decree-holder-Corporation as well as the Bank would have the ample opportunity to substantiate their respective claims of the ownership. 3. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Punjab Financial Corporation (Decree-holder) obtained a money decree for a sum of Rs. 2,14,183.84 against the J.D. M/s Baba Deep Singh Ice Factory and Cold Storage, Adampur, District Jalandhar on 2.11.1976 from the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The said firm filed an appeal before the Honble High Court and that appeal was dismissed on 23.4.1985. When the Corporation advanced the loan to M/s Baba Deep Singh Ice Factory and Cold Storage, Shri Satnam Singh who was the partner of the said firm mortgaged some property with the Corporation. The said firm filed an appeal before the Honble High Court and that appeal was dismissed on 23.4.1985. When the Corporation advanced the loan to M/s Baba Deep Singh Ice Factory and Cold Storage, Shri Satnam Singh who was the partner of the said firm mortgaged some property with the Corporation. It is not clear from the record when the loan was advanced to M/s Baba Deep Singh Ice Factory and when Shri Satnam Singh became liable in the capacity of a partner. Since the matter was decreed in favour of the Corporation on 2.11.1976 it has to be inferred that Shri Satnam Singh mortgaged his property in favour of the Corporation much prior to 1976. 4. Be that as it may, M/s Baba Deep Singh Ice Factory and Cold Storage and its partners did not discharge the obligation of the Corporation, the Corporation in pursuance of the decree dated 2.11.1976, which was affirmed on 23.4.1985 got the property of Shri Satnam Singh sold and the same was purchased by the Corporation itself for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and the sale certificate was issued on 9.6.1992 and the sale was confirmed on 15.2.1990. These two dates i.e. 15.2.1990 and 9.6.1992 are very relevant for our purpose because we know that the moment the sale is confirmed and the sale certificate is issued, the title relates back to the date of confirmation of the sale. On the basis of the sale certificate dated 9.6.1992, the Corporation moved an application under Order 21 Rule 95 C.P.C. for the delivery of the possession of the property purchased by it. 5. Two-fold objections were filed in the execution proceedings; one filed by Shri Satish Kumar respondent and one filed by the Union Bank of India. It was inter-alia pleaded by Shri Satish Kumar that the Corporation cannot be delivered the possession of the disputed property because it earlier belonged to Satnam Singh partner of the firm and this property was sold in court- auction on 2.4.1987 under the orders of the court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Shri M.M. Aggarwal in execution of the decree obtained by the Punjab and Sind Bank and in that auction the property was purchased by Shri Jaswinder Singh son of Shri Sucha Singh. The sale in his favour was confirmed and sale certificate was issued in his favour by the Court on 4.6.1987. The sale in his favour was confirmed and sale certificate was issued in his favour by the Court on 4.6.1987. Thereafter, Jaswinder Singh sold the property through the registered sale deed dated 11.1.1988 to S/Shri Joginder Singh son of Sh. Naranajan Singh and Narinder Kumar son of Gurdev Ram, who later on sold the same property to the present objector Shri Satish Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 2.11.1989. He further averred that he has become owner in possession of the property since the date of his purchase. There was no notice given to him before re-auctioning the property in favour of the decree-holder Corporation. He has also filed Civil suit for declaration regarding his ownership of the property by virtue of the purchase and the same is pending in the Court of Civil Judge as subsequent auction of the property in favour of the Corporation is void and illegal. 6. Union Bank of India also filed the objections against the delivery of the possession of the disputed property to the Corporation by inter alia alleging that Shri Satnam Singh, the original owner of the disputed property stood guarantor with it for the repayment of the loan amount of Rs. 33,000/- which was taken by M/s Gurbinder Engineering Company by executing guarantee deed dated 25.2.1975 and he deposited the title deeds of the property in dispute with the Bank. When the loanee failed to repay the loan amount the Bank filed a civil suit against it and the guarantor Shri Satnam Singh and the suit was decreed on 4.6.1980 by the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jalandhar and it was ordered in that decree that Bank will be at liberty to sell the mortgaged property for recovery of the decretal amount if loanee and the guarantor failed to pay the same. The Bank also alleged that it had already filed execution application in the Court for execution of the decree and got the disputed property attached through the Court and an entry to that effect was also made vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 202 dated 18.2.1987 and in these circumstances the decree-holder Corporation cannot get the possession of the property. 7. Notice of both the objections was given to the decree-holder Corporation. 7. Notice of both the objections was given to the decree-holder Corporation. The Decree-holder alleged that at the time of taking loan by the J.D.-firm the disputed property was mortgaged with it by Satnam Singh partner as collateral security without possession through equitable mortgage on 28.12.1972 for repayment of the loan of Rs. 1,75,000/- taken by the firm-JD and as such his property was rightly put to auction by the Court as he and his firm both failed to satisfy the decree obtained by the Corporation against them through Court. 8. The trial Court framed the following issues in order to dispose of the objections : 1. Whether the objector-petitioner is owner in established possession of the property in dispute ? OP objector. 2. Whether the property in suit was sold in Court auction conducted on 2.4.87 under the Order of Shri M.M. Aggarwal, SJIC, Jalandhar, to satisfy the decree of Punjab and Sind Bank, If so, its effect ? 3. Whether the property was purchased by Jaswinder Singh son of Sucha Singh in Court auction and the same was duly confirmed and sale certificate was issued in favour of auction purchaser, if so, its effect? OP objector. 4. Whether Jaswinder Singh sold the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 11.1.1988 to Joginder Singh and subsequently sold it to the objector through registered sale deed on 2.11.1989 if so, its effect ? OP objector. 5. Whether the objection petition filed on 13.10.1995 has merit as mentioned in the grounds, if so, its effect ? OP objector. 6. Whether the objection-petition is not maintainable as alleged in preliminary objection No. 1 ? 7. What is the effect of the decree granted by the Additional District Judge on 27.11.1995 for Rs. 2,14,183.84 ? 8. What is the effect of the confirmation of the mortgaged property attached ? OP objector. 9. What is the effect of the decision on the Honble High Court in F.D.R. No. 34/77 which was dismissed on 23.4.1995 ? OP objector. 10. What is the effect of the sale of the property on 10.7.1988 duly purchased by the Corporation for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- which was confirmed on 15.2.1990 ? OP objector. 11. Whether the property in question was mortgaged with Union Bank of India. If so, its effect ? OP objector. 12. Relief. OP objector. 10. What is the effect of the sale of the property on 10.7.1988 duly purchased by the Corporation for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- which was confirmed on 15.2.1990 ? OP objector. 11. Whether the property in question was mortgaged with Union Bank of India. If so, its effect ? OP objector. 12. Relief. The parties led evidence and on the conclusion of the proceedings the trial Court decided issues No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in favour of Shri Satish Kumar objector while issued No. 6 to 10 were decided against the decree-holder Corporation and issued No. 11 was left open. 9. The reasons given under issues No. 1 to 11 are contained in paras No. 11 to 28 of the impugned order which can be reproduced in the following manner :- 11. The counsel for the parties have agreed before that all the issues may be discussed together as the facts are not much in dispute in this case. Therefore, all these issues are taken up together. 12. Satnam Singh was the original owner of the disputed property. He was the partner of the J.D.-Firm M/s Baba Deep Singh Ice Factory and Cold Storage, the D.H.-Corporation has sought possession of the property on the basis of sale certificate dated 5.6.1992 issued in its favour in execution of its Decree against the J.D.-firm which had obtained Rs. 2,14,183.84 on 24.11.1976 and which was also confirmed by the Honble High Court while dismissing the appeal of the J.D.-Firm on 23.4.1985. The property has been purchased by the D.H.- Corporation itself in execution of its decree for sum of Rs. 40,000/- only. 13. All these facts remain undisputed and also otherwise stand proved from the statement of Tek Chank, Clerk, DH-Corporation has also placed on record photo copy of Sale Deed, Ex.DWW-1/1 dated 21.3.1972, vide which one Kabul Singh sold the disputed property to Satnam Singh and also photo copy of Jamabandi is Ex.DWW/-1/2 for the years 1941-42, Ex.DWWW/1/3 for the years 1944-45, Ex.DW-1/4 and Ex.DWW-1/5 for the years 1952-53, wherein one Toti is shown in possession of the property in dispute. 14. Satish Kumar, objector, has claimed ownership of the disputed property on the basis of purchase through registered sale deed dated 2.11.1989, copies of which are Ex.OX and OY from Joginder Singh and Narinder Singh for valuable consideration. 14. Satish Kumar, objector, has claimed ownership of the disputed property on the basis of purchase through registered sale deed dated 2.11.1989, copies of which are Ex.OX and OY from Joginder Singh and Narinder Singh for valuable consideration. He is his own statement, has also deposed that property of Satnam Singh was sold by the Court earlier in execution of a Decree passed in suit No. 230/81 in favour of Punjab and Sind Bank and the same was purchased by Jaswinder Singh on 4.6.87. He has also produced photo copy of sale certificate Ex.-6 issued by Shri M.M. Aggarwal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Jalandhar, In favour of Jaswinder Singh, auction purchaser on 4.6.87. He has further produced copied of Sale Deed, vide which said Jaswinder Singh sold the suit property to Narinder Singh and Joginder Singh on dated 11.1.1988 and also delivered possession of the property to the vendee. 15. Copies of sale deed Ex.OX and Ex.OY vide which Satish Kumar has purchased the property on 2.11.1989 from Joginder Singh and Narinder Singh also contains the recital regarding delivery of possession of the suit property to him by the vendors. 16. From the resume of the above referred facts, and the documents, it is no doubt evident that DH-Corporation purchased the disputed property on 5.6.1992, when it was put to auction in its execution application through which it sought the recovery of the decretal amount from the J.D.-Firm. The property had been purchased by it for only Rs. 40,000/- But prima facie, there is nothing on the record to show that this purchase was made by the D.H. Corporation itself with the prior permission of the executing Court before whom it filed the execution application for recovery of the decretal amount against the J.D-Firm. There is no reference to the grant of permission to the D.H. in the copy of sale certificate dated 5.6.92 issued in its favour by the then Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar. 17. Apart from this, there is ample evidence on the record to show that on the date of auction of the disputed property of Satnam Singh, execution of the decree of the D.H. Corporation, he was not at all its owner. His property was got auctioned by Punjab and Sind Bank in execution of its decree passed in Suit No. 230 of 1981 on 2.4.1987 and it was purchased by Jaswinder Singh in the auction. His property was got auctioned by Punjab and Sind Bank in execution of its decree passed in Suit No. 230 of 1981 on 2.4.1987 and it was purchased by Jaswinder Singh in the auction. Sale certificate was issued by Shri M.M. Aggarwal, the then Sub Judge 1st Class, Jalandhar in favour of said Jaswinder Singh, copy of which is Ex.D-6 on the file. There is nothing on the record to suggest that this auction had ever been got set aside by the D.H.-Corporation. The argument of learned counsel for the D.H. that the disputed property was already under mortgage with D.H.-Corporation, when loan was advanced to the J.D.-Firm, in which Satnam Singh was partner in December 1972 and as such, could not be got auctioned by the Punjab and Sind Bank, in execution of its execution and that the auction is void and illegal, cannot be accepted. The alleged mortgage with the D.H.-Corporation was only on papers and it was without possession and even no entry in the revenue record to that effect was got made by the D.H.- Corporation as even not disputed by its counsel before me. 18. Even after learning about the earlier auction of the property of Satnam Singh in execution of decree, obtained by the Punjab and Sind Bank, no steps have been taken by the D.H.-Corporation to get the same set aside. In the present proceedings, it is difficult to hold for this Court that the said auction is void or illegal, as no evidence for proving this fact has been brought on record by the D.H/Corporation. 19. After purchasing the property in dispute in public auction, Jaswinder Singh auction purchaser further sold the same in favour of Joginder Singh and Narinder Singh through registered Sale Deed dated 11.1.1988, copies of which have been placed on the file. The present objector had purchased the property from these vendees, through two registered sale deeds dated 2.11.1989 (Copies Ex.OX an OY) for valuable consideration. He has obviously become owner of the property in dispute by virtue of purchase for consideration. 20. Learned counsel for the D.H. has not been able to assail the purchase of the disputed property by objector Satish Kumar on any ground. He has obviously become owner of the property in dispute by virtue of purchase for consideration. 20. Learned counsel for the D.H. has not been able to assail the purchase of the disputed property by objector Satish Kumar on any ground. No knowledge about any equitable mortgage of the disputed property by Satnam Singh with the D.H.-Corporation can be attributed to the present objector, for want of any evidence to that effect on the file. Therefore, the present objector being bona fide purchaser of the disputed property is entitled to retain its possession. 21. The purchase of the disputed property by the D.H./Corporation itself in execution of its own decree has got no bearing on the right of the objector- Satish Kumar in the disputed property. As observed above, the purchase had been made by the D.H. without prior permission of the Court, for want of any evidence to prove that any permission was ever taken from the Court of the D.H.-Corporation before purchasing the property in dispute. 22. Moreover, at the time of sale of the disputed property, Satnam Singh was never its owner as observed above and as such could not be sold. There is also nothing on the record to suggest if the present objector was given any notice before sale of the property in dispute. 23. The D.H. Corporation being subsequent purchaser of the property in dispute, in execution of its own decree, cannot be given preference over the objector-Satish Kumar, who had bona fide purchased the same for valuable consideration from the vendees, who earlier purchased from the person, who got the property in Court auction on 4.6.1987, as discussed above. 24. In Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and another v. Devi Sahai and others, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 989, it has been observed by the Apex Court that ordinarily if auction purchaser is outsider or stranger, and if the execution of the decree was not stayed, of which he may have assured himself by appropriate enquiry, the Court auction held and sale confirmed and the resultant sale certificate having been issued, would protect him, even if the Decree in the execution of which auction had been held, is set aside. This proceeds on the footing that enquiry in favour of the stranger should be protected. This proceeds on the footing that enquiry in favour of the stranger should be protected. But if the auction purchaser is the decree-holder himself, situation would materially alter and then, the decree-holder/auction purchaser would not be entitled to any protection. 25. In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above, the decree- holder-Corporation is not entitled to seek possession of the property in dispute as the very purchase of the disputed property by it in execution of its own decree cannot be held to be valid and proper as at that time, Satnam Singh, whose property was got auctioned, was no longer its owner having already sold in the Court auction in a decree obtained against him by the Punjab and Sind Bank on 4.6.1987 much prior to the second auction of the property in dispute in favour of the D.H./Corporation. 26. True that Union Bank of India has also filed objections and claimed that the disputed property was mortgaged with it as collateral security by Satnam Singh, being a guarantor when the Bank advanced loan to M/s Gurbinder Engineering Company, Adampur, and it has got the same attached after obtaining the decree, but whether the Bank has got right to get the disputed property sold or not in the execution of its decree, is not required to be gone into in the instant proceedings. This matter has to be decided by the Court before whom the Bank had taken out execution proceedings and got the property attached. The present D.H.-Corporation and objector/Satish Kumar, are also entitled to raise objection before that Court. 27. Moreover, the objector-Satish Kumar had already filed Civil Suit seeking declaration regarding his ownership of the disputed property and the same is still pending. The D.H./Corporation and the Bank both will have ample opportunity to substantiate their respective claims of the ownership of the disputed property. Therefore, objections of Union Bank of India in the instant execution proceedings are not required to be decided by this Court, when the Bank had already taken out separate execution proceedings before the Court and it is within the jurisdiction of that Court to decide if the property was mortgaged with Union Bank of India and that the Bank has right to get the same attached and sold. 28. 28. In view of the discussion made above, the D.H./Corporation is not entitled to seek possession of the disputed property from objector Satish Kumar, who is apparently its owner by virtue of purchase". Not satisfied with the impugned order, dated 26.11.1997 the present revision has been filed by the Corporation. 10. I have heard Mrs. Sangita Dhanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri V.K. Jindal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property in question was mortgaged with the Corporation by way of equitable mortgage and by way collateral security without possession on 28.12.1972 for repayment of the loan amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- meaning thereby that since 28.12.1972, this property was in the possession of the decree-holder Corporation in a constructive manner and the charge of the Corporation relates back to this date. This property was put to auction by the Corporation under the decree of the Civil Court dated 2.11.1976 which was affirmed by the High Court on 23.4.1985 and the property was purchased by the Corporation for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. The sale was confirmed on 15.2.1990 and the sale certificate was issued on 9.6.1992. Therefore, the decree-holder has every right to get the possession of the property when the physical possession is still with the judgment-debtor or his transferee and in these circumstances, the trial Court has not rightly decided the application under Order 21 Rule 95 C.P.C. filed by the Corporation in order to take the possession of the property. 12. On the contrary, Shri V.K. Jindal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of objector Shri Satish Kumar submitted that the property admittedly belongs to Shri Satnam Singh. This property was put to auction on 2.4.1987 much earlier to the auction in which the decree-holder Corporation participated. The decree was obtained against Shri Satnam Singh by Punjab and Sind Bank. The property was put to auction and was purchased by Shri Jaswinder Singh. The sale certificate was issued in his favour on 4.6.1987 much earlier to the sale certificate which was issued in favour of the Corporation on 9.6.1992, therefore, the title vested in Jaswinder Singh when the property of Shri Satnam Singh was attached by the Court of Shri M.M. Aggarwal, Sub Judge 1st Class. The sale certificate was issued in his favour on 4.6.1987 much earlier to the sale certificate which was issued in favour of the Corporation on 9.6.1992, therefore, the title vested in Jaswinder Singh when the property of Shri Satnam Singh was attached by the Court of Shri M.M. Aggarwal, Sub Judge 1st Class. In that execution proceedings, the Corporation never filed any objection under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. to the effect that the property is under equitable mortgage dated 28.12.1972. Since the sale certificate in favour of Jaswinder Singh has been issued on 4.6.1987, thus, he became the owner with effect from 4.6.1987. Thereafter, Shri Jaswinder Singh sold the property though a registered sale deed dated 11.1.1988 in favour of Shri Joginder Singh and Narinder Kumar and they sold the property to the present objector on 2.11.1989. The present objector Shri Satish Kumar is a bona fide purchaser for consideration of the property. He was never given a notice by the decree-holder Corporation before conducting the auction and the property which had already vested in legal manner in favour of Shri Jaswinder Singh could not be re-auctioned by the Corporation and, therefore, the sale certificate dated 9.6.1992 does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the decree-holder. Moreover, Sh. Satish Kumar had already filed a civil suit seeking a declaration regarding his ownership of the property by virtue of his purchase dated 2.11.1989 and he is in possession of the property as a matter of right, therefore, the decree-holder cannot take the possession of the property. 13. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and am of the opinion that this revision must fail. The case of the decree-holder- Corporation is that it was equitable mortgagee on the basis of equitable mortgage dated 28.12.1972. There is no entry of this equitable mortgage in the revenue record. Assuming for the sake of arguments that on the basis of equitable mortgage dated 28.12.1972 some right, title, or interest in the property had come in favour of the Corporation, what are its rights in these circumstances? There is no entry of this equitable mortgage in the revenue record. Assuming for the sake of arguments that on the basis of equitable mortgage dated 28.12.1972 some right, title, or interest in the property had come in favour of the Corporation, what are its rights in these circumstances? When on the basis of the decree obtained by Punjab and Sind Bank the execution was filed against Shri Satnam Singh, it was obligatory upon the Corporation to file the objection under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. to allege that some rights, title or interest have been transferred to it on the basis of the equitable mortgage and there should be adjudication of the claims in this regard. The Corporation did not file the objections. When the property of Shri Satnam Singh was put to auction, the Court must have issued the notice to the general public and at that stage also, the Corporation could file the objections. No objections were filed under Order 21 Rule 66 C.P.C. or under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. As a result of that the sale in favour of Shri Jaswinder Singh auction purchaser was confirmed and he was issued the sale certificate on 4.6.1987 much earlier to the sale certificate dated 9.6.1992 which had confirmed the sale held on 15.2.1990. Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. lays down that "where any claim is preferred to, or any objections is made to the attachment of, any property attached in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the claim or objection in accordance with the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. Once the objections have not been filed by the Corporation under Order 21 Rules 58 C.P.C. then it is not open for it to show now that on the basis of the sale certificate dated 9.6.1992 it is entitled to take the possession of the property because the purchase by Shri Jaswinder Singh is ante time to the sale certificate dated 9.6.1992. Moreover, Shri Jaswinder Singh has sold the property through a registered sale deed dated 11.1.1988 to S/Shri Joginder Singh and Narinder Kumar and they sold the property to the respondent Shri Satish Kumar on 2.11.1989. Moreover, Shri Jaswinder Singh has sold the property through a registered sale deed dated 11.1.1988 to S/Shri Joginder Singh and Narinder Kumar and they sold the property to the respondent Shri Satish Kumar on 2.11.1989. He is a bona fide purchaser and even by virtue of Section 53 the right of Shri Satish Kumar has to be protected. 14. There is another angle of vision whether sale in favour of the Corporation is a valid one or not. According to Order 21 Rule 72-A C.P.C. when a property is to be purchased by the decree-holder in an auction, it is obligatory upon such decree-holder to obtain prior permission of the Executing Court. Order 21 Rule 72-A C.P.C. lays down as follows :- "Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 72, a mortgagee of immovable property shall not bid for or purchase property sold in execution of a decree on the mortgage unless the Court grants him leave to bid for or purchase the property". There is nothing on the record to show that any permission was granted to the decree-holder Corporation by the Executing Court in order to participate in the execution proceedings. It is a basic law of the land that nobody can part a better title than the one which he had. If the right title or interest of the property of Shri Satnam Singh had already been transferred to Shri Jaswinder Singh on 4.6.1987 as is evident from the sale certificate Ex.OX, how and under what circumstances the Corporation can get right, title or interest in the property on the basis of the sale certificate dated 9.6.1992 which had confirmed the sale held on 15.2.1990. It is evident from the sale deed of Shri Jaswinder Singh that he had handed over the possession of the property to Sh. Narinder Singh and Joginder Singh and they delivered the possession of the property to Shri Satish Kumar as is clear from the recital of the sale deed. The decree-holder Corporation cannot take the benefit of equitable mortgage because on the basis of that mortgage no entry was made in the revenue record and further the actual physical possession of the property remained with Shri Satnam Singh. The Corporation did not take any step for getting the sale set aside in execution of the decree obtained by Punjab and Sind Bank against Shri Satnam Singh. 15. The Corporation did not take any step for getting the sale set aside in execution of the decree obtained by Punjab and Sind Bank against Shri Satnam Singh. 15. In these circumstances, it has to be held that Shri Satish Kumar was the bona fide purchaser of the property for valuable consideration and he is coming to the Court on the basis of the title which had vested in his predecessor Shri Jaswinder Singh on 4.6.1987. Moment it is held that property had vested in Shri Jaswinder Singh, it could not be put to auction second time and thus, the Corporation did not get a legal and valid title. 16. I may mention here that this Court is not determining the rights of Union Bank of India vis-a-vis respondent Shri Satish Kumar. I am only affirming the finding of the trial Court on issues No. 1 to 10. With regard to the rights between Union Bank of India and Satish Kumar, the separate proceedings are already going on. Union Bank of the India has filed the execution and it is agitating its right whereas Shri Satnam Satish Kumar has filed the separate suit for declaration that he has become the owner of the property on the basis of the sale deed. Be that as it may, I am of the considered opinion that this revision is devoid of any merit. The same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. Revision dismissed.