ARUN CHANDRA RAY Vs. RAMANATH KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen out of a suit for declaration that a certificate of sale did not affect the right, title and interest of plaintiff 1 Arun Chandra Roy and the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3, Sudhanya Kumar Roy and for recovery of possession of the land concerned with mesne profits on the ground that the sale was null and void. The suit was dismissed in both Courts holding that the sale was not vitiated by fraud as alleged and that it was otherwise a valid sale.

(2.) In this appeal it 19 contended that the sale is ab initio void inasmuch as the sale certificate was in the name of the manager of Sudhanya, one of the co-sharers and not in his own name. The owners of this tauzi, viz., tauzi No. 14468 in Register D are shown as Jayalakhi Debya, manager of minor Sudhanya Chandra Roy and Arun Chandra Roy. At the time when the entry was originally made in Register D Sudhanya was a minor, and it appears from the findings of the Court of appeal below that after he became major the entry remained unchanged and the judgment-debtor is shown in the certificate as being Jayalakhi Dabya, manager of Sadhanya Chandra Roy and Arun Chandra Roy. Under the Land Registration Act only managers whose names can be entered in Register D are managers as defined in the Act, that is to say, managers appointed by Collectors, Courts of Wards, civil or criminal Courts or managers who are in charge of minors or idiots, or who are trustees or executors. In this case the findings do not show that Jayalakhi Dabya was a manager of this kind. Her name simply remained in Register D after her son Sudhanya attained majority; and, in fact at the time of the sale Jaylakhi Dabya had no interest in the property. So that, that portion of the sale which concerns Jaylakhi Dabya as manager for Sudhanya must be regarded as a nullity inasmuch as there was no cess due by Jaylakhi Debya and she was not the judgment-debtor. The sale therefore only transferred the half-share of Arun Chandra Roy.

(3.) This view is supported by the case of Kalipada Roy V/s. Mukundalal Roy . It was held in that case that under Section 4 of the Act a manager in the ordinary sense is not a parson from whom public demand is due. That being so, as regards that portion of the sale certificate the certificate would not be valid. When there are no arrears of revenue certificates an officer has no jurisdiction to issue sale certificate or to sell any property under it. In this case the whole sale cannot be treated as null and void because the other cosharer from whom public demand was due was jointly and severally liable for the cess due. The question of estoppel has been raised. Bat from the findings of fact it appears that Sudhanya only came to know of the sale at the time of delivering possession to the auction-purchaser, that is to say, in June 1918. He is therefore not estopped from contending that the sale is void,