RAM BUX Vs. RAM KARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first point which arises for consideration in this second appeal by the plaintiff is of limitation, The point arises this way. The plaintiff-appellant in the present case was the judgment-debtor in Suit No. 483 of 1952 of the Court of Munsif Jaunpur in execution of the decree; in that suit agricultural land belonging to the present plaintiff-appellant were attached on 21-12-1953. Proceedings for execution of that decree by sale of the agricultural land were taken by the Collector, Jaunpur, 20-4-1955 was the date fixed for the auction sale and the land was sold for Rs. 744/-. The 7th defendant respondent Shyam Charan was the auction purchaser. It is alleged that the present plaintiff-appellant deposited the sum of Rs. 789/- on 18-5-1955 within 30 days of the sale before the Collector and applied for setting aside of the sale. Having done so, the plaintiff went home thinking that the sale would be set aside, but it appears, according to the plaintiff's case, that the decree-holder in that suit objected to the setting aside of the sale and the notice of the hearing of the decree holders' objection was served by affixation on the plaintiff-appellant. It is further the case of the plaintiff-appellant that the service of the notice on him was fraudulent. This was followed by confirmation of the sale on 18-8-1955 and possession is also said to have been taken by the auction-purchaser on 6-6-1956. It is said that the proceedings for delivery of possession were also fictitious and it was in July 1956. When the auction-purchaser interefered with the cultivation of the land by the present plaintiff-appellant, that he came to know about the confirmation of the sale. The present plaintiff-appellant then moved on 7-7-1956 an application for review and setting aside of the sale. The application was dismissed on 18-6-1958 on the ground that the order of confirmation of sale was appealable. The present plaintiff-appellant then applied for revision. The revision was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 4-1-1961. He then applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed on 26-8-1965.

(2.) The present suit was filed on 26-11-1965 and the relief sought is the cancellation of the auction sale dated 29-4-1965 in execution of decree in Suit No. 483 of 1952.

(3.) The limitation for filing a suit was one year under Article 12 of the First Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act 1908 from the date when the sale is confirmed, or otherwise would have become final and conclusive, had no such suit been brought. The sale in the present case was, on the plaintiff-appellants' own allegation, confirmed on 18-8-1955. One year limitation under Article 12 of the First Schedule to Indian Limitation Act expired on 18-8-1956 but the suit was filed more than 9 years thereafter. This period was sought to be explained with the aid of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 which runs as follows:-