Waiver and estoppel barred challenge to a confirmed auction sale after withdrawal of objections and acceptance of benefits.

A confirmed auction sale could not be set aside where the objections were not shown to have been validly authorised by all respondents, were later withdrawn, and the respondents accepted the excess amount arising from the sale. Their conduct amounted to waiver, acquiescence and estoppel, because a party cannot adopt inconsistent positions after benefiting from the transaction. On these facts, the High Court's interference with the confirmed sale was unsustainable and the setting aside of the auction sale was wrongful.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the confirmed auction sale despite the absence of a valid and subsisting objection by the respondents, and whether the respondents had waived their right to challenge the sale by their conduct.

Analysis: The objections to the auction sale were filed only by one respondent, and the record showed that the vakalatnama was executed only by that respondent. The other respondents were not shown to have authorised the filing of the objections, and their own stand in the later application was inconsistent with any claim that the objections had been filed on their behalf. The sale had already been confirmed, the objections were withdrawn, and the respondents further accepted the excess amount arising from the auction sale. On these facts, their conduct amounted to acceptance of the validity of the sale and attracted the doctrines of waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel. A party cannot be permitted to take inconsistent positions to challenge a transaction after having benefited from it.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference with the confirmed auction sale was unsustainable. The respondents were precluded by their conduct from questioning the auction sale, and the setting aside of the sale was wrongful.

---