RAM KRISHNA RUHIDAS AND ANOTHER Vs. MUHAMMED MAHAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal on behalf of Ram Krishna Ruhidas and Bishnu Ram Ruhidas defendant -appellants against the order of the District Judge, Tripura, passed in Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1952 on 11 -8 -1952 by which the order of the learned Munsif, Kailasahar, in suit No. 3 of 1951 dated 22 -12 -1951 decreeing the plaintiff's suit was confirmed.

(2.) IT appears that jote No. 31 of village Irani, Kailasahar was formerly in the name of Ram Krishna Ruhidas and Bishnu Ram Ruhidas defendant -appellants and it was sold in arrears of rent decree under the Tripura Public Demands Recovery Act in case No. 54 of 1348 T.E. on 14th Asad 1350 T.E. and it was purchased by the plaintiff respondent for Rs. 105/ -. This sale was confirmed on 30th Kartick 1350 T.E. - vide Ex. A and the sale certificate was issued on 17th Asad 1350 T.E. Symbolical possession was given to the -plaintiff respondent on 20th Sravan 1353 T.E. but the present appellants claim to have remained in possession throughout and so suit No. 3 of 1951 was filed against them.

(3.) THE main question which is to be determined in this appeal is whether the plaintiff respondent acquired any valid title by means of his purchase through the sale certificate Ex. 4. The plaintiff purchased this property in case No. 54 of 1348 T.E. on 14th Asad 1350 T.E. - vide Ex. 2 and he got delivery of possession on 30 -7 -50 T.E. - vide Ex. 3. The plaintiff deposited the 1/4 purchase money on the date of the conclusion of the sale but he did not deposit the remaining 3/4 within 15 days as required by O. 21, R. 85, C.P.C., or within one month as required by the Tripura execution rules then in force and this money was deposited in instalment as time was extended by the execution Court from time to time and no objection was raised by the appellants to this at that time. The learned Advocate for the appellants has urged that under S. 24, Tripura Public Demands Recovery Act, the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure were made applicable so far as they could be applied to execution proceedings under this Act and so it is contended that no time could be extended for depositing 3/4 of the purchase money.