O S MEAH Vs. DURGA CHURN DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the first defendant, the purchaser at an auction-sale held under the provisions of Act XI of 1859.

(2.) The estate sold was a residuary share bearing Touzi No. 2017 of the Chittagong Collectorate. The plaintiffs alleged that there were no arrears due from the estate and, granted that there were arrears, that the processes required by the Act were not duly served.

(3.) The First Court decreed the suit in February 1918 on the ground that there was no arrear of revenue on account of which the sale could be held. The purchaser then preferred an application for review of judgment, and this was allowed on April 1918. Both sides adduced additional evidence, and then the learned Subordinate Judge held that there were arrears for which the estate could be sold, but that there was collusion between the appellant and one of plaintiffs co-sharers, and consequently he directed the appellant to re-convey the property to the plaintiffs.