Restitution after reversal of decree: execution sale by decree-holder purchaser cannot stand once the decree is set aside.

Restitution under Section 144 CPC is available when a decree under which property was sold in execution is varied or reversed, and the right is assessed with reference to the position existing when restitution is sought. A later decree in favour of the decree-holder does not validate an earlier execution sale conducted under the reversed decree. The distinction between a decree-holder purchaser and a bona fide stranger purchaser is material; where the decree-holder purchased the property in execution of the erroneous decree, the sale could not stand after that decree was set aside. Restitution was therefore allowed, with restoration of possession subject to deposit of the decretal amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether restitution could be ordered under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code when the decree under which the property was sold in execution had been set aside, even though a fresh decree was passed later after remand.

Analysis: Restitution follows automatically when a decree is varied or reversed, and the right is determined with reference to the position existing when the application for restitution is made. The fact that the suit was later re-decided in favour of the decree-holder did not validate the earlier execution sale, because the sale had been held under the reversed decree. The distinction between a decree-holder purchaser and a bona fide stranger purchaser was material, and where the decree-holder himself purchased in execution of the erroneous decree, the sale could not stand once that decree was set aside.

Conclusion: Restitution was available to the appellant, and the appellant was entitled to restoration of possession of the properties sold in execution, subject to the condition of depositing the decretal amount.

---