On the strength of the permission granted by the' Revenue Divisional Officer, as required under clause 6 of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of In1movable Property by Scheduled Tribes Regulation 3 of 1956 and Rule 4 made thereunder,. to sell his private property to a non-scheduled Tribe person for a sum of Rs. 40001-, Respondent 3 sold his property on January 2, 1964 by a registered deed· of sale to the appellant, despite an attachment order passed by the Executing D Court on July 13, 1963 on an application dated June 28, 1963 made by Respondent l to recover the decretal amount as per the money decree obtained by him on August 18, 1962 against Respondent 3 and his mother Respondent 4. Later, Respondent No. 1 however, prcxluccd the copy of the order passed by the R.D.O. dated October 23. 1963, at the instance of appellant in the Executing Court and got the property put to sale on May 15, 1964. Jn the court auction respondent 2 son of respondent 1 purchased the property. On June 22, 1964, the appellant E filed an application under Order 21 Rules 89 and 90 llnd Sections 47 and 151 C.P.C. for setting aside the auction sale on the ground that the attachment and the auction sale were void for want of permission from the competent authority under Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956 and also due to fraud committed bY the decree holder. The application ·was allowed followed by confirmation by the appellate judge, in appeal. But the High Court in Second Appeal reversed it accepting the contention of res judicata.
