GOURANGA SUNDAR DAS GUPTA Vs. RAKHAL MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Only one question of law has been raised in this batch of 62 appeals. The admitted facts are Touji No. 2409 of the Midnapore Collectorate was registered in the records of the Collectorate under two separate accounts. Separate account No. 1 was shown as liable for Rs. 1446-4-1 as the share of revenue payable and the residuary share Rs. 1446-11-3. The two separate accounts had been opened when the two shares were held by two sets of co-sharers. In course of time these two shares came to be owned by the same person but in the records of the collectorate the separate accounts were continued to be maintained. Both the separate accounts fell into arrears. A notice under Section 6, Revenue Sales Act, was issued, which is EX. 6A in this case. The notice included description of the two separate accounts. On 24-6-1939, the said two separate accounts were put up to sale for the realization of the total arrears of revenue, From the bid sheet, (EX. I) it appears that bids were offered for the two separate accounts together. Gunendra Nath Mitra became the auction-purchaser. The defence case is that after the purchase by Gunendra a notice of annulment was issued and the putni which had been in existence at the time of the revenue sale was annulled.

(2.) The only point now raised in these appeals is that as there were two separate accounts in respect of the Touji, was the sale of both the separate accounts together a sale of the entire Touji entitling the purchaser to annul all in cumbrances ?

(3.) It is well known that before the Revenue Sales Act was passed in 1859 estates were being put up to sale for arrears irrespective of the question whether the majority of the co-sharers had deposited their shares of the revenue or whether the amount due was large or small. The co-sharers who had paid their share within the due date were affected seriously by such sales. Provision, therefore, was made in 1859 for affording protection to the co-sharers who were willing to pay and had paid their share of the revenue. On the application of the parties the Collector began to keep a record of separate accounts in the names of the different co-sharers. The liability of the entire estate for the total amount of revenue was not in any way affected by this arrangement. The only privilege given was that if the co-sharers had got separate accounts opened in the Collectorate the revenue apportioned for the particular co-sharers would be receivable by the Collector. At the initial stage the shares belonging to such of the cosharers who duly paid the amount allotted in their share would not be put up to sale even if there be a default on the part of one or more of the other co-sharers. Only the defaulting separate accounts would be put up to sale in the first instance. If the Collector found that the total amount of the revenue in arrears was not realisable from the sale, he would thereupon give notice that the entire estate would be put up to sale. Sections 13 and 14, Revenue Sales Act, have to be referred to in this connection.