KASHI NATH MUKHERJEE Vs. NIL RATAN SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit to recover a sum of money which he had deposited under Section 14A, Patni Taluks Regulation (VIII of 1819), in order to set aside a Patni sale; and the sole question which arises is whether he is entitled to recover. The appeal has been argued at great length, but may be disposed of on certain broad grounds.

(2.) The suit was dismissed by both the Courts below. Shortly stated, the facts which it is necessary to set out for the purposes of this appeal are as follows : The plaintiff's father Parbati Oharan Mukherjee held a mourashi mokarari tenure under the patni which belonged to one Nani Lai Saha, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 1, 2 and 3. Nani Lal had purchased this patni at a mortgage sale held on 20-2-1922, for a sum of HS. 30,000 the mortgage having been executed by the former patnidars, the Sarkars, in favour of the plaintiff's father for a sum of Rs. 10,500. The patni rent having fallen into arrears, the zamindars instituted proceedings for sale of the Patni under Regn. VIII of 1819, and on 17-11-1937, the patni was sold and purchased by the zemindars themselves. It appears that on the day preceding the Astam sale, the patni was put up to sale in execution of a money decree, and the plaintiff and his brothers purchased the property. Upon the death of Parbati Oharan Mukherjee, the plaintiff and his brothers had also succeeded to the mourashi mokarari tenure under the patni.

(3.) Within 30 days from the date of the patni sale, namely, on 14-12-1937, the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 3412-11-11 pies under Section 14A, Patni Regulation in order to have the sale set aside. The deposit was expressly made by him as holder of the mourashi mokarari tenure on the allegation that unless the sale was set aside, the tenure was liable to be extinguished. In other words, it was stated that the deposit was made in order to save the mourashi mokarari tenure in which the plaintiff was interested along with his brothers The plaintiff thereafter instituted the present suit against the heirs of the patnidar Nani Lal Saha, who had died in the meantime, these heirs being defendants 1 and 2, the surviving sons, and defendant 3, the surviving widow of the deceased patnidar, for recovery of the said sum of Rs. 3412-11-11 pies with interest and costs.