SUBBIAH AIYAR Vs. MUTHUKUMARASWAMIA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point argued in this appeal turns on the meaning and effect to be given to Section 285 of the old Code of Civil Procedure. It is admitted that when the Court sale (relied on by the plaintiff) in Original Suit No. 268 of 1905 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tinnevelly was held the property was under the attachment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly: and the question is whether the said sale is invalid.

(2.) We entirely concur in the view expressed by Farran, C.J., in Abdul Karim v. Thakordas 22 B. 88. The sale by the Court of lower jurisdiction being irregular and not invalid the purchaser will take an indefeasible or a defeasible title according in whether he knows or does not know of the irregularity. If he buys bone fide and without notice, his title will be perfect and he will not be affected by the irregularity of the proceedings resulting in the sale." If he purchases with notice he runs the risk of his purchase being set aside".

(3.) The word notice" in the above passage may be open to misconstruction: out reading the judgment as a whole we feel no doubt that the learned Judge used it in no technical sense but intended that the test to be applied was, whether the purchaser acted in good faith without being aware, whether by direct and formal notice or otherwise, that his title was liable to be questioned by reason of the superior Court s attachment.