BHIKAMCHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected cases as the validity of the Marwar Patta Ordinance, 1921, which later came to be known as the Marwar Patta Act (hereinafter called the Patta Act) arises in both. We shall deal with them together as the point involved is common.

(2.) THE second appeal is by Tarachand and briefly the facts are these -

(3.) TARACHAND held a decree against the judgment-debtors, respondents Maghelal and Askaran. A house of Maghelal and Askaran was sold in execution of the decree, and was purchased by Ramlal who is also a respondent in the appeal. Notice under Order XXI, Rule 66 was issued to the judgment-debtors. They, however, did not appear during the course of the execution proceedings with the result that the house was sold in the manner provided in Order XXI of the Code of civil Procedure. After the sale of the house, however, the judgment-debtors appeared in the executing Court, and filed an objection under Order XXI, Rule 90. Their case was that there was material irregularity in the conducting of the sale in as much as the sale had been held against the provisions of Section 21 (2) of the Patta Act. They, therefore, prayed that the sale be set aside. The executing Court dismissed the application remarking that such an objection could not be raised under Order xxi, Rule 90. Thereupon, there was an appeal to the District Judge who apparently held that such an objection could be raised under Order XXI, Rule 90, and sent the case back to the executing Court for determining the question whether there was a Patta of the land or not, and then to decide the matter according to the provisions of Section 21 (2) of the Patta Act.