LAXMINARAYAN Vs. MOHARSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO Courts below have decreed plaintiffs' suit and only question on which the appeal was admitted to be decided is that of limitation.

(2.) THE appeal arises out of a suit instituted by respondents 1, 2 and 3 to declare void sale made on 15 -3 -1964 of their agricultural holding by the Naib Tahsildar for default by them in discharge of their liability in respect of a taccavi loan of Rs. 500/ -, payable to the State Government. Both Courts have held the sale to be illegal and without jurisdiction and that finding is not open to challenge in this appeal.

(3.) ALTHOUGH in this Court, an attempt has been made to submit that the decision of the Courts below on the question of limitation is not sustainable inasmuch as Article 99 would apply, that contention must be repelled by Authories abound for the proposition of law accepted by the Courts below. I do not think if it can be disputed that when a "sale" is not conducted fulfilling the requirements of law, that cannot be regarded as a "sale within the meaning of Art -99.Indeed, a sale could be made for 'any payment recoverable" within the meaning of term employed in Article 99, but it has to be established that a notice of demand was made and the sum due had there for become "recoverable  on the demand being satisfied. See Nani Naj AIR 1958 SC 706, Mohd. Mirtiza Khan 1966 JLJ 543 (SC); Manmohan Lal Shukla 1964 RN 1.