TARA PRASANNA CHONGDAR Vs. NRISINGHA MOORARI PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for the reversal of a sale held tinder the Patni Regulation of 1819. The appeal raises an important question of law, namely, whether a suit instituted under Section 14 of Regulation VIII of 1819 for the reversal of a patni sale is a suit to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed within the meaning of Art. 17 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act of 1870.

(2.) The patni in suit was brought to sale under the provisions of the Regulation on the 15th May 1919 when the third defendant became the purchaser. He defaulted in the payment of rent, with the result that the patni was brought to sale again on the 15 May 1920 when the first two defendants, the sons of the third defendant, became the purchasers, The fourth defendant is the original patnidar, and the remaining four defendants are the zemindars. The plaintiff, who is the darpatnidar, instituted this suit on the 16 June, 1920, for the reversal of the second sale held on the 15 May 1920. The sale is impeached on a variety of grounds and the plaint contains the following statement of the reliefs sought.

(3.) First, a declaration that the auction sale held under Regulation VIII of 1819 on the 15th May, 1920, of the patni regarding the Mahal Kankora in suit is fit to be set aside, and that the said auction sale is void, inoperative and invalid and is not binding and effectual; and a decree accordingly and confirmation of the plaintiffs possession thereof in darpatni right; and