K.N. Seth, J.
1. For the assessment year 1969-70 the petitioner was assessed to sales tax on an estimated turnover of Rs. 1,17,000. Against the order of assessment the petitioner preferred an appeal which was, however, dismissed on 5th October, 1974. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision which was pending at the relevant time.
2. The Sales Tax Officer initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner. In these proceedings one-third share in the house and five shops, situated in Sadar Bazar, Saurikh, district Farrukhabad, besides other properties, were attached. The one-third share in the house and the five shops were put to auction sale on 13th November, 1975. The properties were knocked down in favour of Ram Das, respondent No. 3, for a sum of Rs. 13,000.
3. The revision filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Kanpur Range, Kanpur, by his order dated 18th September, 1976. The assessment order was annulled and the case was remanded to the assessing authority with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order after survey.
4. In the meantime on 14th July, 1976, a sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction purchaser and a sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No. 3 which was registered on 4th December, 1976.
5. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings of sale. A writ of mandamus has also been prayed for commanding the respondents to treat the property belonging to the petitioner and not to interfere in his possession. The only basis put forward in support of the petition appears to be that since the assessment order which created the demand and for realisation of which the properties were auctioned, was annulled in revision, the entire proceedings leading to the auction sale were liable to be set aside. We find no merit in this contention. The setting aside of the assessment order which wiped out the demand against the petitioner has no relevance to the validity of the auction sale and cannot affect the title of respondent No. 3 to the properties in question which he acquired under the sale deed executed in his favour. The petitioner did not take any steps to get the auction sale set aside before the sale was confirmed and the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No. 3. As a result of the sale deed executed in his favour, the petitioner (sic) has acquired title to the property which relates back to the date of sale. We are fortified in our opinion by the decision of the Supreme Court in Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh AIR 1967 SC 608. In that case a house belonging to the judgment-debtor was auction sold in execution of an ex parte money decree. The judgment-debtor did not take any steps under Order XXI, Rule 89, for setting aside the sale. He, however, applied for setting aside the ex parte decree. In the meantime confirmation of sale was stayed by the execution court. Ultimately, the ex parte decree was set aside. The auction-purchaser made an application for revival of the execution proceedings and for confirmation of the sale under Order XXI, Rule 92, C.P.C. The judgment-debtor filed an objection thereto contending that the application for revival of the execution proceedings were not maintainable after the ex parte decree had been set aside. The Supreme Court held that the auction purchaser was entitled to a confirmation of the sale notwithstanding the fact that after the holding of the sale the decree had been set aside. In the present case not only the sale has been confirmed but even the sale deed has been executed and registered in favour of the respondent and he has acquired title to the properties in question. He cannot be divested of his title to the properties simply because the demand created by the assessment order which led to the auction sale of the properties was subsequently annulled.
6. The respondent has purchased an undivided one-third share in the properties in question. Till that share is demarcated he is entitled to symbolic possession over one-third share of the properties. The petitioner is, however, not entitled to any relief in this petition.
7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs.