BOGARAM Vs. MOHANARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defen-dant's second appeal arising out of a declaratory suit under order 21, Rules 63, Civil Procedure Code, The facts are not in dispute and lie within a narrow compass.

(2.) BOGARAM, defendant No. 1 (now appellant) was the decree-holder and defendant No. 2 Isar was the judgment debtor. Bogaram had filed the suit against isar sometime in the yean 1956 and obtained an order of attachment before judgment against his agricultural land on 19-101956. After the suit was decreed in favour of Bogaram on 23-2-1957. he put the decree in ex-ecution regarding 64 beghas of the agri-cultural land under attachment. Moha-naram, respondent, filed an objection, under Order 21, Rule 58. Civil Procedure Code making grievance of the attachment. He stated that this land had been sold to him by Isar by a register-ed sale deed on 9-6-1956 prior to the attachment before judgment in question. He further asserted that he was in possession of the land. The execution court, however, dismissed the objection on 11-4-1959. Mohanaram then filed the declaratory suit under Order 21. Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Civil judge, Ganganagar, before whom the suit was filed, held that the sale of the land in question in favour of Mohanaram was void as it was made without obtaining the prior permission of the Revenue Commissioner as contemplated by a notification no. 108 dated 11th October, 1943, of the former Bikaner State as amended by a notification of the Rajasthan Government dated 15-9-1953. Accordingly he dismissed the suit.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff went up in appeal to the court of the District Judge, Ganganagar. The learned District Judge considered the question whether the notification was law and whether it precludes a Civil Court from giving effect to the sale of land evidenced by a duly registered sale deed. On consideration of the notification the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the clear intention of the notification seemed to be that the revenue authorities and the registering authorities were not to recognise a sale of land, if the sanction of the commissioner was not given thereto, nevertheless the other remedies open to the purchaser had not been taken away. The learned judge further pointed out that even if the revenue authorities could not give effect to the sale, a Civil Court can give appropriate relief to the purchaser and the sale cannot be declared void for want of sanction from the Commissioner, in the result, he held that the view taken by the first court was erroneous. Consequently the learned District Judge accepted the appeal, set aside the decree of the first court and declared that 61 bighas of land mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint was the property of the plaintiff Mohanaram and the same was not liable to be attached or sold in the execution of the decree obtained by Bogaram against Isar.