ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL Vs. AGHORE NATH MOOKERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The real question in this appeal is whether or not the respondent is entitled to have a certain sale to him set aside; or whether he is bound by it and only entitled to compensation for a certain misdescription in the property sold. The facts are as follows: The application to the Court below was by one Aghore Nath Mookerjee, who was the purchaser of certain premises comprised in lot No. 3, at a sale held by the Registrar in the mortgage suit on the 8 July 899. The applicant asked for one of three reliefs: he asked for the rectification of the boundaries in the certificate of sale of the premises sold to him or for compensation in respect of a certain cock-room as to which he says there has been a misdescription in the particulars, or otherwise that the sale to him of the premises might be Set aside, and the purchase-money refunded with interest. Nothing turns upon the first head of relief sought: this has been abandoned.

(2.) The property, lot 3, is thus described in the notification: "All that partly three-storied, partly two-storied, and partly one-storied tenanted house and premises No. 8, Ram Comul Mookerji's Street, at Kidderpore in the suburbs of Calcutta, and the land appertaining thereto, and on part whereof the same is built, containing 7 cottahs 1 chittack and 13 square feet, and bounded on the south by Earn Gomul Mookerji's Street, on the west by a lane with privies belonging to the estate of Digumbar Dass, deceased, oh the east by a blind lane, and on the north by the dwelling house of Prokash Chunder Mookherjee." The conditions of sale contained this condition (No. 12): "If any error or misstatement shall appear to have been made in the particulars or description of the property, such error or misstatement, if capable of compensation, shall not annul the sale nor entitle the purchaser to be discharged from his purchase, but a compensation shall be made to or by the purchaser, as the case may be, and the amount of such compensation shall be settled by a Judge in Chambers."

(3.) On the 8 of July, the applicant paid a portion of the purchase-money and by an order dated the 19 August 1899 it wag ordered that the applicant should be at liberty to pay into Court the balance of the purchase-money with interest, "but without prejudice to his right to raise any question as to title or compensation, with liberty to the petitioners to apply with regard to the boundaries of the property, if so advised, and that thereupon the sale be confirmed and a certificate of sale should be granted to the petitioner as the purchaser of the property as aforesaid." The balance of the purchase-money was paid in. The applicant complains that there has been an error or misstatement in the particulars, or misdescription of the property in two respects. He says that he will not get the area, which was sold to him, seven cottahs odd, unless a certain lane with certain privies shown on the plan (Exhibit A) are included. He is right in this contention, and it has been conceded by Mr. Pugh, who appears for the Administrator General of Bengal, the vendor, that the lane and privies must be given to the applicant. I need then say nothing more about this.