RANCHHODDAS BHIKARDAS BHATE Vs. MANGA BHIKA BHOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals raise an interesting question as to the applicability of Section 66, Civil P. C. Section 66 was enacted in order to prohibit a suit against the certified purchaser by a real owner on the ground that the purchase was made on behalf of the real owner or on behalf of someone through whom the plaintiff claims, and this rule was enacted for reasons of public policy. It will be noticed that this section runs counter to the well-known equitable principle that the Court would give effect to the real and not to the nominal title. It is perfectly true that inasmuch as this section contravenes a well-established principle of equity, it must be strictly construed.

(2.) THE facts which give rise to these appeals are very brief. THE plaintiff sued for possession alleging that he had been dispossessed some time before he filed the suit, and the suit was resisted by one of the defendants on the ground that he was a purchaser at a court-sale and a sale certificate had been issued in his name. THErefore it is quite clear that in order to succeed in his suit the plaintiff had to displace the title which the Court had conferred upon defendant4. He could only get possession provided he proved that defendant 4 had purchased the property not as the real owner but as his benamidar. I should have thought that a suit of this character would come clearly within the mischief of Section 66.

(3.) THE result is that both the appeals fail and they are dismissed with costs. .