SREMATI KUSUM KAMINI DEBI Vs. HARA SUNDAR MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of two suits which were tried along with, two other suits. The suits were brought by some of the co-sharers of a certain residuary estate to set aside a certain revenue sale which was held in June, 1918. The two suits in question out of which these appeals have arisen were heard along with two other suits of the same nature. The facts alleged were as follows:-- The plaintiffs were co-sharers in the residuary estate Ja Sakhini which is No. 68 in the Pabna Collectorate. The sadar jama of the parent estate was Rs. 647-7- 0. Certain of the co-sharers opened separate accounts and the revenue of the residuary share that was left was Rs. 582-2 0. it is with this residuary share that, we are now concerned. Two of the proprietors of this residuary estate mortgaged their entire share amounting to some 8 ? annas to -the defendant No. 1, Hara Sundar Majumdar. He sued on his mortgage and having obtained a decree brought the property to sale and purchased it in the name of a certain private idol of which he was the shebait, This purchase was made on the 26 March and the price paid was Rs. 25,000. On the 28 of March the residuary share defaulted in payment of the revenue and it was sold for this arrear on the 26 June. On the 22nd of June the sale under the mortgage has been finally confirmed.

(2.) The plaintiffs in the original four suits who were four of the co-sharers in the residuary estate sought to set aside the sale on the ground that the notices required by's 6 of the Act (XI of 1859) had not been complied with The notices had not been duly served, they did not contain a sufficient description of the property and there were other irregularities, as a result of which the properties had been sold at a grossly inadequate price, the real value of the property being about Rs. 40,000. Further they contended that there had been fraud on behalf of the defendant. On this point their case was that there was a a agreement that the defendant would purchase and then he would re-convey their shares of the estate to the plaintiffs. This arrangement the defendant failed to carry out. It was further their case that the defendant was not really the shebait of the idol as he alleged but that he was really acting in his own interests and that he had been trying for some time to get possession of the whole property.

(3.) The case of the defendant was a traverse of all the allegations of the plaintiffs.