AHMED BATCHA SAHIB Vs. MOHAMED HANEEF SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this appeal is whether Section 146 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, which was repealed by the Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1934, applied to a case where a holding had vested in the Official Assignee of Madras on the insolvency of the ryot.

(2.) On the 3 August, 1931, the estate of one Abdul Karim was ordered by this Court to be administered in insolvency. The proceedings had been instituted by a creditor during the lifetime of Abdul Karim, but he died before the order of adjudication was passed. On 2nd June, 1933, the landholder took action under Section 112 of the Madras Estates Land Act for arrears of rent and as a result the property was sold to one Abdul Subhan. Notice of these proceedings was not given to the Official Assignee. On 17 November 1934, Abdul Subhan sold the holding to one Rahima Bi, who is now dead and whose heirs are the plaintiffs. On 31st December, 1934, Moosa Miyan, the eldest son of the insolvent, sold the property, to the first defendant. On 15 March, 1935, the Official Assignee conveyed the property to one Abdul Hakim, who on the 17 February, 1937, sold it to the second defendant.

(3.) On the 23 June, 1937, the heirs of Rahima Bi instituted the present suit against the first defendant and his sons (defendants 2 to 4). The suit was for the recovery of possession of the holding. The plaintiffs averred that Rahima Bi had been given possession by the Revenue Court but had been wrongly dispossessed by the first defendant. The first defendant died during the pendency of the suit. The District Munsiff held that the sale to Abdul Subhan was valid and that consequently the Official Assignee was bound by it. The second defendant, who had bought the property from Abdul Hakim to whom the Official Assignee had sold it on the 15 March, 1935, appealed to the Subordinate Court. The Subordinate Judge held that as no notice had been given by the landholder of the proceedings under Section 112 of the Madras Estates Land Act, the sale was not binding on the Official Assignee. The present appeal is by the plaintiffs against the decree dismissing their suit.