RAM JANAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for setting aside the sale of a 2 annas 8 pies share in village Kausalpur, bearing separate account No. 2 under tauzi No, 654, on 8-1-1948, for arrears of revenue due for the September kist of 1947.

(2.) The only point which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the sale is liable to be annulled in accordance with the provisions of Section 33, Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act (XI of 1859). Section 33 of Act XI provides that no sale for arrears of revenue shall be annulled except on the ground of its having been held contrary to the provisions of the Act and on proof that the plaintiff has suffered substantial injury by reason of the irregularity which has been committed. I may also refer to the provisions of Section 8, Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act (VII of 1868) which are to the effect that a certificate of title given to a purchaser under Section 28 of Act XI of 1859, or Section 11 of Act VII of 1868, shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that all notices required to be served or posted under the two Acts have been duly served and posted. It is obvious that both these sections have to be given their full effect. If that is done, the following points emerge; 1. A revenue sale is liable to be annulled if it has been held contrary to the provisions of Act XI of 1859 and if it is proved in addition that the plaintiff, who has instituted the suit for annulments of the sale, has suffered substantial injury by reason of the irregularity complained of. 2. An allegation of non-service or non-posting of notices required to be served or posted under Act XI of 1859 and Act VII of 1868 cannot be entertained by the Court if a certificate of title has been granted to the purchaser because the certificate is, under Section 8 of Act VII of 1868, conclusive evidence of the fact that requisite notices have been duly served and posted.

(3.) An allegation that the sale has been held contrary to the provisions of Act XI of 1859 can only be entertained and enquired into if it does not relate to non-service or non-posting of notices. 3. The decision in the case of Badri Narain Sahu v. Beni Madho Prasad, AIR 1945 Pat 186 (A) fully supports the view which I have expressed above, and, indeed, Mr. S. C. Ghosh, who has appeared before me on behalf of the appellants, has not argued that there has been any irregularity in this case in service or posting of any notice of the kind contemplated by Section 8 of Act VII of 1868.