PRABIRENDRA MOHAN Vs. BERHAMPORE BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a common judgment and three decrees passed by this Court, affirming thereby a common judgment and three decrees passed by a learned Subordinate Judge in three suits brought for setting aside the sales of three patnis. The Courts have concurrently decreed the suits and defendant No. 2, the zamindar at whose instance the patni sales were held, wants our leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

(2.) THE plaintiffs. in the suits were the holders of the patnis sold. It was not disputed that the arrears for which the patnis had been brought to sale were in fact due, but the plaintiffs' case was that the sales had been irregular in that requisite notices had not been properly exhibited at the zamindar's kutchery and notices required to be served on the properties themselves had not been served at all. The defendants impleaded in the suits were the Berhampore Bank Limited which was defendant No. 1, the purchaser, and the zamindar, Maharaja Prodyot Kumar Tagore, the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioner. The common defence of the defendants was that the sales had been properly held, but the bank took a special plea that if the sales were set aside, it should be awarded indemnity under Section 14, para. 3 of the Putni Regulation for the loss sustained.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 2, the zamindar, appealed to this Court. The suits had been valued in the trial Court at Rs. 5300/ -, Rs. 3400/ - and Rs. 2100/ -respectively. Defendant No. 2 adopted the same valuations and, by his grounds of appeal, objected only to the findings as to the invalidity of the sales. No ground was taken against the indemnity awarded to defendant No. 1, either as to the awards themselves or as to their quantum. The amounts of the money decrees were not included in the valuation of the appeals, nor was any court -fee paid thereon.