AJODHYA SINGH Vs. SIR KAMESHWAR SINGH BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of jurisdiction which arises in each of these applications is the same. The material facts are also similar. It will suffice, therefore, to set out the facts of one case, namely, civil Revision No. 51. Opposite party l obtained a decree for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 19 against the petitioners and opposite parties 2 to 8. Execution was first taken out with the object of putting up for sale the holding in respect of which the rent had been decreed. In a later proceeding, however, execution was taken out against another holding which was attached. In -the sale proclamation its value was stated to be Rs. 16. At the execution sale which followed the holding was purchased by the decree-holder for Rs. 23 on 17th December 1936. On 18 February 1942, an application was made to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale. It was alleged that the applicant had no knowledge of the sale until 11th February 1942. The Munsif to whom this application was made was a judicial officer specially empowered by the local Government to exercise final jurisdiction in the matter under Clause (b) of Section 153, Tenancy Act. He held that the execution processes had been fraudulently suppressed and set aside the sale. The Munsif also found in each of these cases that the property advertised for sale had been grossly under-valued. Against that order there was an appeal by the decree- holder which resulted in the Munsif's order being set aside and the sale confirmed. It is now contended that no appeal lay from the order of the Munsif and that the appellate order was, therefore, made without jurisdiction. In so far as it is material to the present case, Section 153, Tenancy Act, which is relied upon by the petitioners, provides as follows: An appeal shall not lie from any decree or order passed in the first instance in any suit instituted by a landlord for the recovery of rent where the decree or order is passed by any judicial officer specially empowered by the local Government to exercise final jurisdiction under this section, and the amount claimed in the suit does not exceed fifty rupees, unless the decree or order has decided a question relating to title to land, or to some interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto.

(2.) To this section there is an Explanation which was added in 1907, namely: A question as to the regularity of the proceedings in publishing or conducting a sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent is not a question relating to title to land or to some interest in the land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto.

(3.) As the application to set aside the action sale arose in execution of a decree made in the suit instituted by the landlord for the recovery of rent, and the order setting aside the sale was made by a judicial officer specially empowered by the local Government to exercise final jurisdiction and the amount claimed in the suit did not exceed fifty rupees, it is contended that the order of the Munsif was final. On behalf of the opposite party, however, it was contended that the order of the Munsif setting aside the sale has decided a question relating to title to land or to some interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto, and that, accordingly, an appeal lies. In reply to this contention the petitioner relies on the Explanation to the section which, it is submitted, debars an appeal in a case where a question relating to title to land or to some interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto arises only by reason of the fact that an execution sale has been set aside for an irregularity or fraud in publishing and con-ducting the sale.