(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the suit from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated 19 February 1925, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga dated 25th June 1921. The delay in the disposal of this appeal is accounted for by the fact that the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 4 November 1926, and it was not until 22 March, 1928, that by an order of His Majesty in Council the appeal was restored upon certain conditions therein specified. The appellant's case was lodged in April 1928 ; the respondents however did not file a case and were not represented at the hearing of this appeal.
(2.) The suit was brought by the plaintiff, a pardanashin lady, to set aside the sale of a certain share of Mauza Ladugaon, which took place on 6 June 1919, by reason of alleged arrears of revenue, for recovery of possession of the said share and for mesne profits. It was alleged that the plaintiff's share in the said village was five annas ten gandas, and that defendants 2 and 3, Bedanand Thakur and Lachhmi Kant Thakur, together with other persons, were the owners of the other share in the said village. It was further alleged that the above- mentioned two defendants had purchased the plaintiff's share in the said village in the name of their relation, defendant 1, Surajnarayan Chaudhuri, at a grossly inadequate price, viz., Rs. 1,350, the real value of the plaintiff's share being at least Rs. 16,000. There were nine issues raised at the trial, but it is necessary to refer to two only for the purpose of disposing of this appeal. (1) The plaintiff alleged that defendants 2 and 3 had acted fraudulently and in collusion with the plaintiff's patwari and had bribed him to allow the payment of revenue to become in arrear, so as to bring the plaintiff's share to sale. Both the Courts in India held that the plaintiff had failed to prove her case of fraud and collusion, and the learned counsel who appeared for the plaintiff at the hearing of this appeal did not contest the correctness of that finding. (2) The other issue, to which reference is necessary, was numbered 4 in the trial Court and was as follows : " Whether the sale was held in absence of arrears of Government revenue as alleged."
(3.) The Subordinate Judge found this issue in favour of the plaintiff and directed that the suit be decreed with costs, that the plaintiff should recover possession of the said share in the village on depositing the amount of consideration within one month and that the amount of means profits should be ascertained at a later stage. The defendant, Surajnarayan Chaudhuri, appealed against the above-mentioned decree to the High Court at Patna, making the plaintiff, and defendants 2 and 3 respondents. The learned Judges of the High Court held that there was an arrear of revenue in respect of which the share of the plaintiff was liable to be put up for sale, and that the sale of 6 June 1919, was valid. They therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.