AMALABALA DUTTA Vs. OLI MUHAMMAD KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order of the learned District Judge, Midnapore, allowing an application against the decision of a Munsif empowered under the provisions of Section 153, Sub-section (b) of Bengal Tenancy Act to exercise final jurisdiction in an application under Section 174, Sub-section (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The application under Section 174, Sub-section (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act was filed by present Petitioner who is one of several co-sharer tenants of a jama in which a decree was obtained by the landlord for a sum of Rs. 5. The application for execution was filed by the decree-holder some time in 1950. After several attempts to bring the property to sale had failed, an order was passed on June 23, 1951, in these words:

(2.) No sale was held on August 18, 1951 but it was held instead on September 1, 1951. What happened on August 18, 1951, was that after the executing court noticed that the concise statements had not been served on judgment-debtors Nos. 3, 4 and 11 and had been returned with the remark "not known" the court directed the decree-holder to take the necessary steps by August 25, and ordered further, "Put up on the 25th August for orders". On August 25, 1951, the decree-holder prayed that the sale might be held "at his risk". The learned Munsiff passed the following order:

(3.) As already stated, the sale was held on September 1, 1951. The property was purchased by opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the sum of Rs. 7,000. The application under Section 174, Sub-section (3) was filed on February 27, 1952. It was alleged therein that there had been "material irregularity in publishing and conducting the "sale" and the property had been sold at a very low price inasmuch as the proclamation had not been openly served at all and, so the intending purchasers could not know of the sale and that consequently the applicant sustained substantial injury. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion on a consideration of the evidence that the "sale proclamation and the concise statement were duly "served and none of the processes were suppressed in the "execution case." He also held that the sum of Rs. 7,000 at which the property was sold was a fair and proper price. In this view he dismissed the application.