Waiver of challenge to execution sale requires clear knowledge and intention; limited concession did not bar fraud-based objections.

Waiver of the right to challenge an execution sale requires clear proof of knowledge and intentional relinquishment; it cannot be inferred where the alleged fraud or suppression was unknown to the party. The burden rests on the party asserting waiver. A limited concession on a fresh proclamation of sale or ordinary irregularities does not amount to a blanket abandonment of objections to fraud, suppression of process, or inadequacy of price, and public policy limits such construction. The appeal succeeded, the setting aside of the sale challenge was reversed, and the matter was remitted for evidence and determination on the validity of the sale challenge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the judgment-debtors had waived their right to challenge the execution sale on the ground of fraud and suppression of process; (ii) whether the waiver, if any, extended to objections based on irregularity in the sale, non-issue of a fresh proclamation, and inadequacy of price.

Issue (i): Whether the judgment-debtors had waived their right to challenge the execution sale on the ground of fraud and suppression of process.

Analysis: Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right, or conduct from which such relinquishment may be inferred. It cannot be predicated on ignorance of the material facts or of the right sought to be waived. A person cannot be held to have abandoned a right to impeach a sale for fraud when the very case is that the fraud was unknown to him. The burden lies on the party asserting waiver to establish knowledge plainly and satisfactorily.

Conclusion: No waiver of the right to challenge the sale on the ground of fraud was established.

Issue (ii): Whether the waiver, if any, extended to objections based on irregularity in the sale, non-issue of a fresh proclamation, and inadequacy of price.

Analysis: The applications made by the judgment-debtors showed at most a limited waiver directed to the issue of a fresh proclamation of sale and to objections as to ordinary irregularities and inadequacy of price. The Court treated the waiver as confined to the specific concession accepted and acted upon, and not as a blanket abandonment of all objections. A purported waiver cannot be so widely construed as to defeat a challenge founded on fraud or suppression of process, and public policy also limits enforcement of such a waiver.

Conclusion: The waiver was limited and did not preclude the judgment-debtors from impeaching the sale on the broader grounds alleged.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order setting aside the sale application was reversed, and the matter was sent back for evidence and determination on the validity of the sale challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Waiver of a right requires clear proof of knowledge and intention, cannot be inferred against a party unaware of the fraud complained of, and will be confined to the specific rights actually relinquished.

---