1. These three revision petitions have been preferred against the common order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Erode in E. A. No. 176/74 filed by the decree-holder in O. S. No. 490/71, E. A. No. 189/74 filed by the decree-holder in O. S. No. 369/70 and E. A. No. 658/74 filed by the decree-holder in O. S. No. 2154/71 for ratable distribution. The respondent herein is the decree holder in O. S. No. 490/71 on the file of Sub. Court, Erode. He obtained a money decree and filed an execution petition for sale of the properties of the judgment-debtors. He obtained the permission of the court to bid and set off and purchased the properties in Court auction on 3-1-1974 for Rs. 9,020, which is less than the decree-amount due to him in O. S. No. 490/71. Therefore the three petitions for ratable distribution filed by the respective decree holders were dismissed by the executing Court. The revision-petitioners now contend that they are entitled to ratable distribution. After the decision of the Bench of this Court in Punamchand Chatraban v. Satyanadan, (1933) 38 MLW 579 : (1933) 69 MLJ 569 : AIR 1933 Mad 804, this contention is no longer open to the revision-petitioners. In that case, Bardswell, J., speaking for the Bench, held that when a decree-holder has been given permission to bid and set off and when the amount of the successful bid is less than the decree amount, the whole of the set off must be deemed as made on the date of sale and the whole of the amount decreed must be deemed to have been received or realised to instanti the sale is made. This was also the view of Ramesam, J., in Ramaraju v. Lakshmiah : AIR1931Mad103 and that view was affirmed by the Division Bench. This has been followed by Ganesan, J., in Thirumayee Ammal v. Palaniappa Gounder : AIR1973Mad7 .
2. Therefore, these revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.
3. Revision dismissed.