execution of a decree on the ground that on the date of the attachment, the objector had some interest in or was possessed of the property attached. Such a claim may be disallowed under Order 21, Rule 61 by the Court on the finding that the property at the time of the attachment was in the possession of he judgment-debtor in his own right. When once such an order is made, and there is no challenge by way of a suit under Rule 63, the order made on the claim or objection petition shall be conclusive. Whatever may be the result of the finality of the order under Order 21, Rule &3, a person who either owns the property or holds an interest in the property by virtue of a title acquired before such sale may apply for setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 89. So also any person whose interests are affected by the sale may apply to the Court to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale under Order 21, Rule 90. The rights conferred under Order 21, Rules 89 and 90 are limited enabling the persons specified to apply for setting the sale. So far as this right to apply for setting aside the sale is concerned, the decision in 44 Mad LJ 325 = (AIR 1923 Mad 487 (2)) held that the effect of the dismissal of the claim under Order 21, Rule 58 was not to decide finally that the petitioner had no interest to ask that the sale should be set aside on payment of the decree amount plus five per cent, into court, but only to decide that the claimant had no right to have the attachment raised. The Court held that "It is impossible to conceive how the dismissal of the claim petition could operate as res judicata to prevent the admission of an application to
