CHINNAMMAL & 4 ORS. vs P. ARUMUGHAM & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that a stranger auction purchaser retains title to property despite subsequent reversal of a decree, as they are not bound to verify the correctness of the judgment. However, if the purchaser had knowledge of pending litigation, they cannot be considered a bona fide purchaser. The Court overruled R. Raghavachari v. M.A. Pekkiri Mahomed Rowther, AIR 1917 Mad 250, establishing that collusion with the decree holder also disqualifies a purchaser from retaining property post-reversal. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the need for restitution to the judgment debtor.