Court sale protection gives way to restitution when the purchaser knew of appeal or colluded with the decree-holder.

A confirmed court sale is ordinarily protected when the purchaser is a bona fide stranger to the litigation and the execution was not stayed. That protection does not extend to a decree-holder purchaser, or to a purchaser shown by evidence to have knowledge of a pending appeal or to have colluded with the decree-holder. In such circumstances, the purchaser cannot claim innocent buyer status, and the equitable principle underlying Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 supports restoration of the property to the judgment debtor after the decree is set aside. On the stated facts, collusion and close connection with the decree-holder justified restitution.

---

---

Issues: Whether a court sale purchaser can retain the property after the decree under which the sale was held is subsequently reversed, and whether restitution can be ordered against a purchaser who is not a stranger in the true sense or who purchased with knowledge of the pending appeal.

Analysis: A confirmed court sale is ordinarily protected where the purchaser is a bona fide stranger to the litigation and the execution was not stayed. That protection does not extend to a decree-holder purchaser, nor to a purchaser who is shown by evidence to have knowledge of the pending appeal or to have colluded with the decree-holder. In such a case, the purchaser cannot claim the status of an innocent buyer, and the equitable principle underlying Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires restoration of the property to the judgment debtor when the decree is later set aside. On the evidence, the purchaser was closely connected with the decree-holder, lacked independent means, and participated in subsequent dealings indicating collusion.

Conclusion: The purchaser was not entitled to retain the property, and restitution was rightly ordered in favour of the appellants.

---