BIRENDRA NATH RAHA Vs. MIR MAHABUBAR RAHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the heirs of one Mir Suratjan for a declaration that the revenue sale of four properties, described in the Schedule to the plaint, was without jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for having the sale set aside on the ground that it had not been held in accordance with the provisions of the Revenue Sales Act. The usual incidental reliefs were also sought. The trial Court made the declaration asked for and granted an injunction against the auction-purchaser, restraining him from interfering with the plaintiffs possession. The latter appealed to the District Judge and having failed there, preferred the present second appeal.

(2.) The facts, admitted or as now found, are the following. Mir Suratjan, who was the owner of the four properties, obtained from the Local Government a loan of Rs. 1000 for the improvement of the first property. The money was made payable in ten annual instalments, beginning from 1932, and each instalment was to be paid on the 1 of Januaty. Mir Suratjan paid three of them, but before he could pay the fourth, he died, leaving the plaintiffs as his heirs, and thereafter no other instalment was paid. The Collector attempted to realise the dues from the plaintiffs by proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act, but failed to recover anything. Thereafter, he brought the properties to sale under the provisions of the Revenue Sales Act and caused them to be sold on 8 of January 1941. The appellant was the only bidder and he purchased the properties for Rs. 150 which, the trial Court has found, was a "somewhat low" price. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the Commissioner which was unsuccessful and thereupon they brought the present suit.

(3.) It is not necessary to refer to the allegations of irregularity contained in the plaint. They were of the usual type and were all repelled by the trial Court which held that neither had the alleged irregularities been proved, nor the injury of an insufficient price shown to have resulted from them, nor had it been established that the grounds on which relief was sought in the suit, had been taken in the appeal to the Commissioner. The question raised by those allegations was thus laid to an early rest. The only question which survived and which requires decision in this appeal is that of the Collector's jurisdiction to sell the properties on which both the Courts below held in favour of the plaintiffs.