GANGARAM BALIRAM Vs. DHARAMCHAND PHULCHAND RANIWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the then High Court of Judicature at Nagpur upon leave granted by Mr. Justice P.P. Deo. The appeal comes before this Court pursuant to a certificate issued by the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 59 of the States Reorganization Act.

(2.) THE subject -matter in dispute in appeal is a field, survey No. 23, area 29 acres 25 gunthas, situated in the village Walki, tahsil and district Amravati. This field belonged to the respondent Dharamchand who is a resident of Calcutta. The appellant Gangaram was at all material times the working patwari of the village Walki. Under Section 140 of the Berar Land Revenue Code, the Deputy Commissioner, Amravati, having certified that the respondent was in arrears of land revenue amounting to Rs. 58 -15 -3 in respect of the year 1940 -41, the said field was put to auction by the revenue authorities on April 24, 1941, at Badnera. At the auction the appellant patwari bid along with one other -person and obtained the field for a sum of Rs. 85. The sale was originally fixed to be held on April 23, 1941, at Badnera, but the Additional Naib Tahsildar sitting at Amravati ordered its postponement to the next day, that is, April 24, 1941, on which day it was sold as stated above. The respondent's application to set aside the sale was rejected by the Sub -divisional Officer, and successive appeals to the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, and a revision application to the Board of Revenue were dismissed, as a result of which the respondent filed the present suit on March 10, 1950.

(3.) THE respondent alleged that the sale was for a very inadequate price and the field was worth Rs. 4,500. He also alleged that the appellant who was a patwari played a fraud upon him and upon the revenue authorities in so far as he suppressed his own identity as patwari of the village Walki and kept that fact and the publication of the sale suppressed, with the result that only one other bidder appeared at Badnera and the patwari himself was enabled to purchase it. Moreover, it was alleged that the respondent was a resident of Calcutta and had no notice whatsoever of the sale or that arrears of land revenue were being demanded from him, and that the appellant patwari falsely represented to the revenue authorities that the respondent had knowingly evaded payment of land revenue in spite of demand, though no demand was ever made.