KAMULAMMAL Vs. NCHOKKALINGAM ASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent's Vakil reports no instructions and withdraws from the case which is therefore heard ex parte.

(2.) The question of limitation is first argued and on that we think appellant must succeed.

(3.) The suit is to set aside a revenue sale and limitation is governed by Art. 12(b) of Schedule I of the Limitation Act. This allows one year from the time when the sale is confirmed or would otherwise have become final and conclusive. There is no provision in the Estates Land Act similar to the one in C.P.C., Order 21, Rule 92, for confirmation of sale and for the sale thereupon becoming absolute and consequently the second clause of Art. 12(b) of the Limitation Act must be applied. Section 124(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act provides that on payment of the purchase money and on the expiration of thirty days the Court shall if no application has been made to set aside the sale under Section 131 or if such application has been made and rejected, grant a certificate of sale to the purchaser stating the property sold, the name of the purchaser, the date of sale. From this it is clear that such a sale would become final, in the absence of any application under Section 131, Estates Land Act, 30 days after the date of sale. This suit was brought more than one year after such date in the present case and is therefore barred by limitation. We are supported in this conclusion by the decision in Karuppa Thevan V/s. Vasudeva Sastri I.L.R. 6 M. 148. This was under the Madras Act II of 1864 in which Section 38 provides that the Collector shall make an order confirming the sale. The absence of this provision in the Estates Land Act makes the present case so much the stronger.