NAND KISHORE Vs. BADAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In execution of a decree held by Nand Lal against Mt. Chanda Dei and Kameshri Singh, certain property was put up to sale as ancestral property, belonging to the Judgment-debtors, by the Collector. The sale was held on the 20 November 1916 and confirmed on the 2 January, 1917. The property was purchased by Badan Singh, who obtained a certificate of sale on the 4 April 1917 from the Collector, and in pursuance of that certificate of sale he subsequently obtained formal possession from the civil Court on the 23 May 1917. When the auction-purchaser applied for the entry of his name in the revenue papers, the judgment-debtors filed an objection as to the nature or extent of the interest purchased by the auction-purchaser, and while that application was pending, the judgment-debtors made an application to the Collector, asking that the certificate of sale should be corrected, to bring it into conformity with the property actually sold, as specified in the proclamation of sale. This application was made on the 12 June 1917, long after the sale had been confirmed and formal possession delivered by the civil Court to the auction-purchaser.

(2.) The Collector, however, proceeded to enquire into the application and on the 18 November 1917 he passed an order setting aside the sale by reason of, what he described as "grave confusion" in describing the property intended to be sold, and he directed a fresh sale to be held after ascertaining from the civil Court whether the sale was to be effected in respect of the rights of the judgment- debtors in the said property as mortgagors, or as mortgagees or both. At the same time he directed the stay of the mutation proceeding arising out of the previous sale.

(3.) The validity of that order is challenged by the plaintiffs in the present suit and both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the order of the Collector, setting aside the sale, was without jurisdiction and that the sale of the 20th November 1916 gave a good title to the plaintiff. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the Collector had jurisdiction to sat aside the sale after it had been confirmed by him and the proceedings had been re-transmitted to the civil Court which had transferred the decree to him for execution. It is suggested on behalf of the defendants-appellants that the Collector had power to review his previous order confirming the sale. But there is nothing in his order to suggest that he was exercising that power. On the other hand, the Collector referring to the proceedings connected with the sale, pointed out that there had been some confusion in describing the property intended to be sold, and that the property had fetched in consequence an inadequate value, and he proceeded to hold that there was in consequence sufficient ground for interfering with the sale after the expiry of the ordinary period of objection.