RAM RIJHAN SAHI Vs. MTRAZIA BEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of five suits instituted in the Court of the first Subordinate Judge at Muzaffarpur. The plaintiffs in the suits were co-proprietors in a revenue paying estate known as mahal Baruraj Panapur Nurjahan bearing tauzi No. 1356 in the Muzafferpur collectorate. The estate is an extensive one, comprising no fewer than 89 mauzas and belonging to a very large number of co- proprietors many of whom have taken the precaution of opening separate accounts. The land revenue payable for the mahal is Rs. 17,894-1-5; but, in consequence of the opening of separate accounts, the land revenue payable for the residuary estate is Rs. 3633-3-2. On 12 January 1935, which was one of the latest dates fixed by the Board of Revenue for the payment of arrears of revenue under Section 3, Bengal Land-Revenue Sales Act (11 of 1859), the residuary estate was in arrears to the extent of rupees 460-2-8.

(2.) A notification was accordingly issued that it would be sold for arrears of revenue on 26 March 1935, and on that date it was sold and was purchased by one Balchand Marwari, who was impleaded in the suits as defendant 1, for a sum of Rs. 5400. On 5 April 1935, Balchand Marwari executed a sale deed conveying the property which he had purchased to nine persons who were impleaded in the suits as defendants 2 to 10. Two of these persons, namely, defendant 8, Jahurimul, and defendant 10, Sitaram Marwari, were persons who had not previously had any interest in the estate. One of them, defendant 7, Syed Khurshaid Hussain, was a co-proprietor in the estate, but had opened a separate account for his share and had no interest in the residuary estate itself. The others were all persons who were co-owners of the plaintiffs in the property which was sold. The plaintiffs contended that the sale was either without jurisdiction or was, for one reason or another, irregular and ought to be annulled. Alternatively, they asserted that the sale had been brought about by the fraud of some of the defendants who were their co-owners and that they were, in any case, entitled to have their interest in the estate reconveyed to them. The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the sale was a valid sale and could not be annulled, but gave the plaintiffs a decree, entitling them to have their interest in the property reconveyed to them by defendants 2 to 9. Immediately after notice of the appeals was issued, cross-objections were put in by the plaintiffs, claiming mesne profits. Subsequently, these cross-objections were permitted to be amended so as to include a prayer that the sale should be annulled. It will be convenient to deal, in the first place, with the latter point taken in the cross-objections.

(3.) It is not denied that the notification required by Section 6, Bengal Land Revenue Sales. Act, was issued and duly published It is, however, contended that the notification was defective. In the first place, it is pointed out that the entry in column 6, which is headed "Name of the proprietor of the property which will be sold" is "Ram Rijhan Prasad Sahi and others". As I have already said, the property belonged to a very large number of persons, and it is suggested that the names of these various persons should have appeared in the notification. Section 6 of the Act does not, however, require this and clearly it is quite unnecessary to set out in the notification the names of all the proprietors as persons intending to bid at a revenue sale do not at all require such information in order to know what the property advertised for sale is.