NAWABZADI KANIZ FATMA Vs. MOHAMMAD YASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by defendant No. 1 against, concurrent judgments and decree, arises out of a suit for a declaration that auction sale under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act (Act IV of 1914), dated 13-4-1954 in respect of mahal Detrol, appertaining to tauzi No. 9954, was void and the appellant, who was the auction purchaser, did not. acquire any title by virtue of the said sale in the property sold. A certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act was issued for realisation of arrears of cess which ultimately resulted in the sale. The plaintiffs-respondents filed an application under Section 29 of the Public Demands Recovery Act and a conditional order was passed on it on 8-8 1955, according to which, the sale was to be set aside if the plaintiffs deposited the purchase money within the time fixed by the court. They defaulted and the application was dismissed.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant in his arguments did not challenge the findings of the courts below. He raised only two questions of law which were not argued before either of the two courts below. It is, therefore, not necessary to set out the cases of the parties in detail. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs' case was that they had a separate account which was not in arrears and they were also not party to the certificate case. They further claimed that notices under Section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act were not served upon them and there were material irregularities in publishing and conducting the sale and that they came to know o the sale for the first time on 8-2-1955. According to them, the real purchaser was defendant No. 2, who was himself in arrears and defendant No. 1 was his mere benamidar.

(3.) Though defendant Nos. 1 and 2 tiled separate written statements, the defence put forward by them was identical. According to them, defendant No. 2 had nothing to do with the purchase and defendant No. 1, i.e., the appellant, was the real purchaser. They admitted that the plaintiffs had a separate account which was not in arrears but maintained that the sale was legal and valid, that there was no fraud or suppression of. processes and that everything was done legally according to the procedure prescribed under the Public Demands Recovery Act.