MAHARAJ KUMAR BABU GANESWAR Vs. MOHUNT GANESH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, special leave to appeal was granted on the ground that substantial questions of law arose upon the decisions of the Courts in India, which had given concurrent judgments in favour of the original respondent, the plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) The suit was brought by the plaintiff to set aside the sale of a village called Subhankarpore, stated to be worth a lakh of rupees, the property of the plaintiff, which had been put up to auction under the provisions of Bengal Act VII. of 1880- the Public Demands Recovery Act-and purchased for Rs. 1,100 by Maharaj Ganeswar Singh, whose estate is represented by the present appellant. The sale was made in execution of a certificate granted by a Deputy Collector in respect of a fine imposed on the plaintiff for failure to comply with a notice issued under Section 16 of Bengal Act IX. of 1880-the Cess Act.

(3.) The sale took place on the 19 September 1893, and the purchaser was put in possession of the village on the 5 December following. On the 2 January, 1894, the plaintiff presented a petition to the Commissioner of the Division, alleging that he had no knowledge of the proceedings which had led to the sale, and that they ought, to be set aside and the sale cancelled as irregular, fraudulent, and collusive. The Commissioner, after hearing the vakils for both parties, by his Order of the 12 December 1894, admitted the appeal, on the ground that the evidence for the petitioner made out "aprimd facie case of fraud, or at any rate of irregularities, which prevented the petitioner from obtaining knowledge of the proceedings against him, and caused the sale of his estate at a most inadequate price"; and he referred it to the Collector "to reply specifically to the allegations of the petition." No report was ap. parently made by the Collector, probably because the purchaser, in his turn, appealed to the Board of Revenue against the Commissioner's Order, with the result that the Board, by an Order of 9 May 1895, decided that the fine was unjust, and had " no hesitation in setting aside the certificate for its recovery." On 4 February 1896, the Commissioner passed a formal Order annulling the sale, on the ground that "it was brought about fraudulently and without legal justification."