BUNWAREE LALL SAHOO Vs. MOHABEER PROSHAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE cases, in which the parties are the same and the facts are the same, turn upon a point of law which admits of being very shortly stated. The Plaintiffs bring their suit for the purpose of setting aside a sale for arrears of Government revenue. The Plaintiffs are the owners of separate shares of the estate in question.' Certain decrees had been obtained against the Plaintiffs, and attachments had been issued under Act VIII. of 1859, some years prior to the sale in question. Upon the application of the Plaintiffs themselves, a surburakur or manager was appointed for the purpose of liquidating the debts. It does not appear to their Lordships that anything turns upon the appointment of this surburakar. It was, indeed, argued in the Court below, though scarcely contended for here, that the appointment of the surburakar superseded the attachment. Their Lordships are of opinion that the attachments were not so superseded, but were in force.

(2.) THAT being so, the estate being thus under attachment, with the exception of one portion belonging to a party of the name of Gooroodoyal, the question arises whether or not the provisions of Section 5 of Act XI. of 1859 apply to this case? This enactment provides, " that no estate, and no share or interest in any estate, shall be sold for the recovery of arrears or demands of the descriptions mentioned below, otherwise than after a notification in the language of the district, specifying the nature and the amount of the arrear or demand, and the latest date on which the payment thereof shall be received, shall have been affixed, for a period of not less than fifteen clear days preceding the day fixed for the payment, according to Section 3 of this Act, in the office of the collector or other officer duly authorized to hold sales under this Act in the Court of the Judge within whose jurisdiction the land advertised lies, and in the Moonsiff Court and Police Thanna of the division in which the estate or share of an estate to which the notification relates is situated." There is no question that this notice was not in point of fact given. The only question that arises is, whether this section applies to the sale of this estate, and in order to determine this it is necessary to read to the end of the section. The arrears or demands described below are: "First, arrears other than those of the current year or of the year immediately preceding. Secondly, arrears due on account of estates other than that to be sold." " Thirdly, arrears of estates under attachment by order of any judicial authority, or managed by the collector in accordance with such order." The arrears for which the estate in question was sold were neither of the first nor of the second descriptions; the only question is whether they fall within the third.

(3.) BUT it has been said that the second portion of this sentence must limit the construction of the first. That the words "or managed by the collector in accordance with such order" must y refer to attachments as well as to the mere management by the collector of estates; but it appears to their Lordships that no such construction necessarily follows. They think that the first part of the clause, " arrears of estates under attachment by order of any judicial authority," should be read by itself, and thus would have the general significance which I have before expressed. The terms "managed by the collector in accordance with such order" would refer to cases in which the collector may manage estates by an order of judicial authority, which may or may not be an order for an attachment. By this construction both parts of the sentence would cohere; and it does not appear to their Lordships that the latter words narrow the plain and obvious meaning of the former.