SOURISH CHANDRA ROY BAHADUR Vs. SAROJ RANJAN SINGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These seven appeals arise out of seven suits instituted in the Court of the Additional Sub- ordinate Judge of Nuddea for the setting aside of a sale held under the provisions of the Putni Regulation (Reg. VIII of 1819). The Suit No. 174 of 1927 to which the renumbered 3 of 1930. First Appeal No. 205 relates was brought by Saroj Ranjan Sinha and others, now respondents, who are co-sharers to the extent of eight annas in the patni tenure which has been sold, the other eight annas co-sharer, a lady of the name of Joy Durga Dasi, having been impleaded as a pro forma defendant as she did not join in the suit. The principal defendant to the suit was the Hon ble Maharaja Khaunish Chandra Roy of Krishna-nagar, who died pending suit on 22nd May 1928, leaving behind him an infant son Kumar Sourish Chandra Roy whose estate was taken charge of by the Court of Wards and the suit was defended by the Collector of Nadia through the Manager Birendra Nath Roy at all subsequent stages.

(2.) Appeal No. 206 arises out of Suit No. 152 of 1928 which was renumbered 4 of 1930 commenced by the Haldars who are Dar putnidars of some of the patni properties and Seputnidars in respect of others, against the original principal defendant, the Maharaja. Appeal No. 207 arises out of Suit No. 169 of 1928, re-numbered 5 of 1930, which was commenced by the Chetlanges who are Darputnidars in respect of some of the villages and Seputnidara in respect of others. Appeal No. 208 of 1930 arises out of Suit No. 171 of 1927, re-numbered 2 of 1930, commenced by the Sircars who are the Darputnidars in respect of some villages included in the patni. Appeal No. 210 of 1930 arises out of Suit No. 161 of 1928, re-numbered 6 of 1930, commenced by one Durga Bala Dassi who is Dar-putnidar in respect of some of the villages. Appeal No. 211 of 1930 relates to Suit No. 162 of 1928, re-numbered as 7 of 1930, commenced by Ratan Lal Halder, one of the Darputnidars. Appeal No. 8 of 1933 arises out of a suit which was instituted by Rati Kanta one of the Darputnidars.

(3.) The Maharaja of Krishna Nagar was the common principal defendant in all these suits being the Zemindar of the Revenue paying estate under which the Taluk in question is held by the putnidars the plaintiffs in the suit to which appeal No. 205 relates, and their co-sharer Putnidar Joy Durga Dassi. The sale in question was held for arrears of rent due from the putnidars for the Aswin Kist of 1334 B. S. for a total demand of about Rs. 13,000. It was held by the Zemindar under the summary procedure laid down in the Putni Regulation, and the putni was purchased by the Zemindar the Maharaja for a sum of Rs. 10,000 as nobody else was present to bid at the sale. It is admitted on behalf of the zemindar that the property has fetched a very inadequate price, and the manager of the Court of Wards, Birendra Lal Roy, has admitted that the putni in question (Taraf Mahatpur) was a very valuable property, and in fact the biggest Putni Mehal in the Raj Estate, and that the Maharaja's income would increase to the extent of Rs. 40 to 60 thousand a year if the mahal could be made khas, and that the Manager Kanti Babu used to try zealously to increase the Maharaja's income. It is by reason of the extreme inadequacy of price fetched at the sale that these eight suits (one of which to which appeal No. 209 of 1930 relates is not before us just now) have been commenced by the several grades of tenants who have joined in attacking the sale on common grounds. The plaint in the suit of the Putnidars, the Sinhas, to which appeal No. 205 relates, has been taken as the type as representing the case of the plaintiffs in the other suits in the argument before us. The validity of the sale has been attached on a variety of grounds. The grounds of attack as formulated in the plaint of the putnidars fall under two broad heads: (1) the sale is void as on a proper construction of the putni kabuliyat which regulates the rights of the zamindar and tenant, the tenure in question is not a putni tenure at all and the provisions of the Regulation 8 of 1819 are not attracted to it, and the summary sale by the zamindar cannot be sustained; (2) assuming the tenure was a putni tenure there has been non-compliance with the provisions of the Regn. 8 of 1819 which render the sale invalid. Under this second head several irregularities are described in the plaint but it is not necessary to refer to all of them as some of the defects hava been held by the trial Court not to affect the sale. I will only refer to such irregularities as have formed the foundation of the decision of the Subordinate Judge in setting aside the sale. They are: A. That the sale was held by the Collector notwithstanding the attempt made by the Darputnidars Mr.M.Pal Choudhury to avoid the putni sale by tendering to the Collector the amount of the arrears of the patni in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Regulation. B. That the Maharaja filed a separate petition for sale for each separate Putni in arrears and purported to have caused to be stuck up at the Collector's Court and at his own Sadar Kutchery a separate sale notice for each such putni and there was contravention of Section 8 read with Section 10 of the Regulation. C. That there was no service of the publication of the sale notification on the Cutchery upon the land of the defaulting putnidar at Chapra, one of the putni villages, and this was sufficient to vitiate the sale. D. That further that there has been no publication of the sale notice in the Mofussil. E. That the rules prescribed in Section 10 of the Regulation were not duly observed in that (1) the lots were not called up successively; (2) that the Revenue Peshkar did not look into the kabuliyat in order to see that the balance remaining unpaid exceeded a four annas proportion of the demand up to the date of the sale, and (3) that the Collector did not give sufficient opportunity to bidders other than the Maharaja to bid. All these grounds of attack have been traversed by the defendant in his written defence. These allegations and counter-allegations have given rise to issues 6, 8, 9 and 14 which run as follows: 6. Is the putni mahal saleable under Regn. 8 of 1819 under the terms of the putni patta? 8. Were the provisions eontained in Section 13 CIause (2) of the putni Regulation complied with? 9. Were the provisions of Section 8. Clauses 2 and 3 of the putni Regulation complied with? 14. Was the sale properly conducted?