Ross, J.This is an application by he auction-purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree, against an order of the District Judge of Muzaffarpur reversing the decision of the Munsif of Bettiah and setting aside the sale.

2. Two points are urged in support of the application. The first is that, as there is no allegation of fraud against the auction-purchaser, the sale cannot be set aside. Reference is made to the decision in Mohesh Chunder Bagchee v. Dwarka Nath Moitro 24 W.R. 260. All that was said in that case was that, however fraudulent the conduct of the plaintiff may have been, if the purchaser is not implicated in the fraud, the validity of the sale would not be affected by the badness of the decree under which the sale took place. There is no question of the decree being vacated in the present instance. "We are now concerned with the question of setting aside the sale under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. Now, it is plain from the terms of that rule which empowers the Court to set aside a sale on the ground of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting it, that it is not necessary that fraud should be alleged against the auction-purchaser who had no existence at the time of publishing or conducting the sale,, and it will seldom be possible. There is also direct authority in the decision in Bipin Bihari Bejali v. Kanti Chandra Mandal 18 Ind. Cas. 715 , that a sale in execution may be annulled on the ground of fraud, even if it were not proved that the auction-purchaser had been a party to the fraud.

3. The second ground taken is that there is no allegation or proof that the judgment-debtor was kept out of knowledge of his right to make the application by any fraud of the decree-holder and, consequently, Section 18 of the limitation Act cannot apply, and unless Section 18 does apply, the application is out of time because it was not made until the 16th December 1921, whereas the sale took place on the 15th September 1921, Now, the finding of the District Judge is, that there was a gross under-valuation in the sale-proclamation where the property, which was probably worth Rs. 1,400, was valued at Rs. 80 only. He further found that everything pointed to the conclusion that the processes were fraudulently suppressed by the landlords servants and the judgment-debtors were kept in the dark about the sale until it was over, and that they made their application under Order XXI, Rule 90, CPC when they came to know of the sale owing to the auction-purchaser applying for delivery of possession. The learned District Judge found that they were kept in the dark by fraud and so their application was not barred by limitation. In support of his argument, the learned Vakil referred to Kailash Chandra Haldar v. Bissonath Parmanic 1 C.W.N. 67, Babu Das Narayana Singh v. Mir Muhammad Yusuf 61 Ind. Cas. 823 : 2 P.L.T. 401 : (1921) Pat. 181 : 3 U.P.L. (Pat.) 33 : 6 P.L.J. 319; Abbubaker Sahib v. Mohidin Saheb 20 M. 10 : 7 Ind. Dec. 7 and Pasumarti Payidanna v. Ganti Lakshminarasamma 29 Ind. Cas. 314 : 38 M. 1076 : 28 M.L.J. 525. The principle, however, has been laid down by the. Judicial Committee in Rahimbhoy Habibbhoy 7. Charles Agnew Turner 17 B. 341 : 20 I.A. 1 : 6 Sar. P.C.J. 256 : 17 Ind. Jur. 40 : 9 Ind. Dec 222 and it is that, in order to make limitation operate when a fraud has been committed by one who has obtained property thereby it is for him to show that the injured complainant had had clear and definite knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud at a time which is too remote for the suit to be brought. It seems clear that the part guilty of fraud must show that the continuing effects of the fraud have been removed. The judgment-debtors were kept from knowledge of the sale by the fraud of the decree-holder and, consequently, must also have been kept from knowledge of their right to apply to set the sale aside so long as that fraud continued and its effect was not removed. There is direct authority on this point in Jotindra Mohun Rai Chowdhury v. Brojendra Kumar Datta Munshi 24 Ind. Cas. 249 : 19 C.W.N. 553. It is true that the undervaluation would not have this effect and mere non-publication of the notices would also not have this effect; but the finding is that there was a fraudulent suppression of service, and unless the effect of that fraud is removed, the judgment-debtors were entitled to the benefit of Section 18 of the limitation Act.

4. In my opinion, therefore, both grounds of this application fail and it must be dismissed with costs.

5. Hearing fee one gold mohur.