TARA PRASANNA CHAUGDAR Vs. NARISINGHA MOORARI PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for the reversal of a sale held under the putni 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 putni 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 putni 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 putni was brought to sale again on the 15 May, 1920, when the first two defendants, the sons of the third defendant became the purchaser. The fourth defendant is the original putnidar, and the remaining four defendants are the Zamindars. The plaintiff, who is the darputnidar, 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 putni regarding the Mahal Kankora in suit is fit to beset 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 darputni right, and