SAT DHAR Vs. RAM CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree-holders respondents obtained a decree from the Court of Small Causes, on the 20 of November, 1918, against the applicant Sat Dhar. In execution of that decree they attached a grove situated in Bundelkhand. One Muhammad Yasin, on the strength of a sale deed from the judgment-debtor, raised certain objections that the property did not belong to the judgment-debtor. His objections were allowed. The decree-holders then instituted a regular suit for a declaration that the sale deed in favour of Muhammad Yasin was fictitious and that the property belonged to their judgment-debtor and was liable to attachment and sale in execution of their decree. In this suit Sat Dhar was also impleaded, but apparently did not put in an appearance. This suit was decreed on the 16 of February, 1920, and an appeal from that decree was also ultimately dismissed. The decree-holders had a declaration against Muhammad Yasin and Sat Dhar that the property belonged to Sat Dhar and was liable to attachment and sale in execution of their decree.

(2.) After Muhammad Yasin had been got rid of, Sat Dhar put in a new set of objections, on the 4 of September, 1920, urging that the property was governed by the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act (II of 1903). On the date fixed for hearing, Sat Dhar did not appear and his objections were dismissed for default on the 4 of November, 1920. On the 22nd of January, 1921, he put in an application for restoration of his objections, but that application was dismissed on the same date. After this, on the 27 of January, 1921, the grove, was sold and purchased by the decree-holders themselves, and on the 1 of March, 1921, this sale VN-as actually confirmed. It does not appear that Sat Dhar put in any formal application for setting aside the sale dated the 27 of January, 1921. He, however, on the 9 of March, 1921, appealed from the order dismissing his application for restoration. His appeal was allowed on the 29 of March, 1921, and the case was remanded. The result of nil these proceedings was that the objections which Sat Dhar had filed on the 4 of September, 1920, were revived and had to be disposed of on the merits.

(3.) On the 5 of July, 1921, the court of first instance allowed his objections and, holding that the property being governed by the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act was not liable to be sold, set aside the sale. The decree-holders appealed from this order, and the lower appellate court, by an order dated the 23 of December, 1921, agreed with the finding of the first court that the grove was not saleable in execution of the decree. The learned Judge thought that that part of the Munsifs order which had directed the setting aside of the sale was "unnecessary."