DORASAMI PILLAI ALIAS AKANTACHIA PILLAI Vs. MUTHUSAMI MOOPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions arise for determination in this appeal. First, was the sale of the lands in question bad for the reason that the requirements of Section 18 of the Act (VIII of 1865) with reference to the public notice were not complied with? Secondly, was the suit bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action?

(2.) As regards the first question Section 18 requires a notice to be fixed up specifying the property to be sold and the time and place fixed for its sale and provides that in fixing the day of sale not less than seven days must be allowed from the date of the notice. The time fixed for the sale was the 22nd, 23rd, 25 and 26 of April.

(3.) The notice was dated the 14 of April, but the District Munsif found, and there was evidence to support the finding, that it was not published till the 16 i.e., less than seven days before the first day fixed for sale. The District Judge was of opinion that the evidence did not establish that the notice was published less than seven days before the earliest of the four days fixed for the sale.