ORDER : K.T. Sankaran, J. The question involved in this Revision is whether the judgment debtor is entitled to contend that he has no absolute title over the property sought to be sold by the court in execution of the money decree passed against him, and therefore, the property is not liable to be sold in execution of the decree. 2. The first respondent obtained a money decree against the revision petitioner and the second respondent. The decree passed by the trial court is for the refund of the advance amount received by the judgment debtor on the basis of an agreement for sale of an item of immovable property. Therefore, there is a statutory charge on the property under Section 55(6)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act. The property was brought to sale in execution for the realisation of the decree amount. The property has an extent of 62 cents. The revision petitioner/judgment debtor filed an objection contending that the decree is not executable by sale of the property in question as the property is a non-patta land belonging to the Government. It was contended that the decree holder has not produced particulars regarding the revenue assessed upon the property and also whether there is any encumbrance on the property. The decree holder also did not mention the nature and character of the property sought to be sold. 3. The decree holder contended that whatever right the judgment debtor has in the property is liable to be sold in execution of the decree. The judgment debtor is not entitled to object to the sale contending that he has no absolute title to the property. 4. The court below noticed that the parties conceded that the properties sought to be sold is a non-patta land. An Amin was deputed to ascertain the market value of the property for the purpose of fixing the upset price to be shown in the sale proclamation. The Amin reported that tentage value of the property was Rs. 1,800/-. No objection was filed to the report submitted by the Amin. The court below accepted the valuation as suggested by the Amin. The court below held that it is not necessary to sell the entire extent of the property and it would be sufficient if an extent of 12 cents on the north- western side of the property is sold. No objection was filed to the report submitted by the Amin. The court below accepted the valuation as suggested by the Amin. The court below held that it is not necessary to sell the entire extent of the property and it would be sufficient if an extent of 12 cents on the north- western side of the property is sold. Accordingly, a proclamation was ordered to be issued for the sale of 12 cents of land. The court below also held that in the proclamation, it should be mentioned that the property is subject to the power of the Government to proceed against the auction purchaser as per the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and that this should be mentioned at the time of confirmation of the sale also and in the Sale Certificate. The contentions raised by the judgment debtor/Revision Petitioner were rejected by the court below. 5. Sri. George Cherian, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property sought to be sold in court auction must belong to the judgment debtor and the court must be satisfied that it belongs to the judgment debtor. If the property belongs to the Government and the judgment debtor has only possessory rights, such a property cannot be sold in court auction. 6. Sri. George Thomas Mevada, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/decree holder and Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court supported the conclusion arrived at by the court below. They submitted that in a court sale, there is no guarantee for title and it is for the auction purchaser to ascertain and satisfy himself as to the rights which he would get on purchasing a property. It is not the concern of the judgment debtor whether the auction purchaser would get title to the property bid in auction. The scheme of provisions relating to execution contained in the Civil Procedure Code shows that at the time of sale, the court need not enquire into the question whether the judgment debtor has absolute, indefeasible or marketable title to the property. Whatever rights the judgment debtor has, would pass to the auction purchaser in the court auction sale. If a third party has any right or interest in the property, the provisions in Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code protect the interests of such claimant. Whatever rights the judgment debtor has, would pass to the auction purchaser in the court auction sale. If a third party has any right or interest in the property, the provisions in Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code protect the interests of such claimant. A lawful owner of the property is always entitled to protect his property from being delivered in favour of a person who has not acquired title to the property. The defect in title of the property of the judgment debtor will not affect the jurisdiction of the court to sell the property in court auction. 7. Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code provides for the powers of Court to enforce execution. Clause (b) therein provides that the court may, on the application of the decree holder, order the execution of the decree by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property. Section 60 provides the property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree. It includes "all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgment debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power." If the property is subject to a mortgage or charge, attachment is not required before bringing the property for sale. Even if there is no such mortgage or charge, mere absence of attachment before sale would not make the sale invalid Deshbandhu Gupta v. N.N. Anand & Rajinder Singh ( (1994) 1 SCC 131 )). The Explanation to R.90 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code also makes the position clear that the mere absence of, or defect in, attachment of the property sold shall not, by itself, be a ground for setting aside a sale. R.54 of Order 21 provides for the procedure for attachment. The attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way, and all persons from taking any benefit from such transfer or charge. Section 64 of the Civil Procedure Code provides for the consequences of a private transfer of the property attached. It provides that such private transfer shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. R.58 of Order 21 provides for claims or objections to attachment of property. R.66 provides for the proclamation of sale to be issued before sale of the property. It provides that such private transfer shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. R.58 of Order 21 provides for claims or objections to attachment of property. R.66 provides for the proclamation of sale to be issued before sale of the property. Clauses (a) to (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 provides for the matters to be specified in the sale proclamation. Clause (b) therein provides for specifying the revenue assessed upon the estate or part of the estate, where the property to be sold is an interest in an estate or in part of an estate paying revenue to the Government. Clause (c) provides for specifying any encumbrance to which the property is liable. 8. In a court auction sale, the decree holder can also participate and bid in auction, provided he gets necessary permission from the court under Rule 72 Order 21. A mortgagee of immovable property can bid in auction only after the court grants him leave to bid under Rule 72A Order 21. After the sale is held, any person claiming an interest in the property sold at the time of sale or at the time of making the application may apply to have the sale set aside on depositing the amount specified in the proclamation, a sum equal to 5% of the purchase money and the costs, under Rule 89 Order 21, within 60 days as provided in Article 127 of the Limitation Act. The decree holder, the auction purchaser or any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may apply to the court under Rule 90 to Order 21 to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. R.91 of Order 21 provides that the purchaser at sale in execution of a decree may apply to the court to set aside the sale, on the ground that the judgment debtor had no saleable interest in the property sold. Where no application is made under Rule 89, R.90 or R.91 or where such application is made and disallowed, the court shall make an order under Rule 92 confirming the sale and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. Where no application is made under Rule 89, R.90 or R.91 or where such application is made and disallowed, the court shall make an order under Rule 92 confirming the sale and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. R.94 of Order 21 provides for issue of Sale Certificate to the purchaser specifying the property sold and the name of the person who at the time of sale is declared to be the purchaser. R.95 of Order 21 provides for the delivery of property in the occupancy of the judgment debtor or of some person on his behalf or of some person claiming under a title created by the judgment debtor subsequently to the attachment of the property. R.96 provides for delivery of property in occupancy of tenant. 9. When the property sold in court auction is attempted to be delivered, a stranger whose rights are affected, may apply to the court for adjudication of his right, title and interest in respect of the property. Such person may obstruct the delivery also. When obstruction is made, the auction purchaser would be entitled to apply for removal of resistance under Rule 97 Order 21. It is now well settled that even before the delivery, the obstructer is entitled to apply before the executing court for adjudication of his rights over the property. Even after delivery, Rule 99 Order 21 enables a stranger who claims right over the property to make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession. In all these cases, the court shall determine all questions (including the questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to the proceeding as provided in R. 101 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. On such adjudication, appropriate orders would be passed by the court and such an order shall be treated as a decree, as provided in Rule 103 Order 21. 10. Going by the scheme of provisions in the Civil Procedure Code as mentioned above, there is no scope for adjudication of the title of the judgment debtor before sale. If the court is satisfied that the judgment debtor has some right or interest in the property, proprietary right or possessory right, nothing prevents the court from conducting the court auction sale of that property. If the court is satisfied that the judgment debtor has some right or interest in the property, proprietary right or possessory right, nothing prevents the court from conducting the court auction sale of that property. The aggrieved party, whether it is the auction purchaser or a stranger, has got remedies under the Civil Procedure Code for protecting his rights. If the auction purchaser shows that the judgment debtor had no title, appropriate orders can be passed by the court setting aside the sale under Rule 91 Order 21. It is also well settled that there is no guarantee for title in respect of a court sale. 11. In Bhagwandas Dwarkadas v. Heejulbai (A.I.R (35) 1948 Sind 24) it was held that where the court has before it an application to execute a decree by attachment of property, the court is concerned with the property in the hands of the judgment debtors. The court is concerned with judgment debtors; it is not concerned with third parties; and if it should appear thereafter that the property attached was in the possession of a third party, then it is for the third party to raise his claim and ask for an adjudication. It was also held that it is not for the court to adjudicate upon the claim of a third party on the objection of the judgment debtor. In Jai Prakash Talkies v. Lakshmi Talkies (1964 (2) A.W.R. 298) it was held that Order 21 R.58 contemplates that the claim should be made by a person putting forward a right or title to the property attached. An objection by the judgment debtor that he is not the owner of the property in question, does not bring it within the terms of Rule 58 Order 21. It was also held that it is not open to the judgment debtor to resist the attachment contending that the owner thereof is someone else and not the judgment debtor. 12. In Subbayya v. Joshva ( 1971 KLT 574 ), the question which arose for consideration was whether the Kuthakapattam Rules would interdict the sale in court auction of any property in the possession of the judgment debtor on Kuthakapattam rights. 12. In Subbayya v. Joshva ( 1971 KLT 574 ), the question which arose for consideration was whether the Kuthakapattam Rules would interdict the sale in court auction of any property in the possession of the judgment debtor on Kuthakapattam rights. It was held that considering the scope of Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code, the expression "saleable interest" should be taken to refer to interest which could be sold at a compulsory sale, as in execution of a decree and not denoting alienation. A general prohibition against private alienation could not bar involuntary alienations such as sales in execution of decrees. The court took the view that the judgment debtor in possession of the property under Kuthakapattam rules cannot object to the sale in execution of the decree against him even though the proprietary right vests in the Government and it is for the Government to come forward and object to the sale. The judgment debtor is not competent to put forward such objections. 13. In K.H. Rajangam Iyer v. Umbichi Aiyisha Veevi and 2 others (XLIII TLR 466), it was held: "The judgment-debtor may have no right to alienate the property; but the property may nevertheless be saleable within the meaning of the section, unless there is legislative provision to the contrary. The wording of the section recognised two classes of property liable to attachment, viz., that which comprised property in which the judgment-debtor has a saleable interest, which evidently means an interest capable of being sold in court sale, and another class comprising property over which he has a power of disposal. It would follow from this that though the debtor cannot alienate the property he may nevertheless have such interest as may be sold by the court. If it be established that a debtor has some right over a property it must be presumably saleable unless the law declares otherwise." 14. There may arise situation where encroachers of Government land may attempt to create rights by collusion with third parties. Sometimes, collusive decree for money would be obtained against such encroacher and in execution of that decree the property would be sold. The auction purchaser would thereafter claim rights over the properties and rely on the court auction sale as conferring absolute title on him. Sometimes, collusive decree for money would be obtained against such encroacher and in execution of that decree the property would be sold. The auction purchaser would thereafter claim rights over the properties and rely on the court auction sale as conferring absolute title on him. The Government is not bound by such court auction sale and title of the Government would not be lost by any such sale. The Government would be entitled to protect their rights under the various provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and also with recourse to Special Statutes governing the subject. Sufficient safeguard can be taken by the executing court by mentioning in the sale proclamation about the nature of the property, the rights of the judgment debtor to the extent it was disclosed and the rights of the Government, if any, as contended by the parties. If so, an innocent purchaser would not be put to any prejudice. The rights of such innocent purchasers are protected under Rule 91 Order 21 of the Code. The court below issued necessary directions in the order impugned to mention in the sale proclamation and in the sale certificate the contention of the judgment debtor that the property is a Government land. This safeguard is sufficient for meeting the contention put forward by the judgment debtor. An enquiry into the objections raised by the judgment debtor could only be made by issuing notice to the Government. Such an exercise is not contemplated by the scheme of the provisions in the Civil Procedure Code, though the court is not powerless while dealing with a particular case, to make an enquiry into such questions when it becomes absolutely necessary. The judgment debtor, as of right, cannot contend that he has only limited rights and the absolute right vests in a third party and therefore, no sale could be held. If the judgment debtor has saleable interest in the property, no matter whether it is negligible when compared to the absolute title, that does not prevent the court from proceeding with the sale of the rights of the judgment debtor to the extent to which such rights could be sold. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not think that the order impugned is without jurisdiction or that there is failure to exercise the jurisdiction, necessitating interference under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 16. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not think that the order impugned is without jurisdiction or that there is failure to exercise the jurisdiction, necessitating interference under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 16. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. Before parting with the case, I express my appreciation to the service rendered by Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel who assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae. Revision dismissed.