BAIJNATH SAHAI Vs. RAMGUT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THEIR Lordships do not think it necessary to call upon the learned Counsel for the respondents to address them in this case. It comes before this Board on an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta, which affirmed, with costs, the judgment and decree of the first Subordinate Judge of Zillah Shahabad, dated April 19, 1888.

(2.) THE litigation out of which the appeal has arisen concerned a sale purporting to be made by the collector of Shahabad of an estate called Bhadwar on September 24, 1882. The plaintiffs in the action, the present respondents, were the owners of that estate. They are very numerous, and are alleged to be more than one hundred in number. The defendant, and present appellant, was the purchaser at that alleged sale. The sale was impeached by the owners on various grounds which may be summarised by saying that they are to the effect that the sale did not comply with the requirements of the statute under which it purported to be made.

(3.) NOW the proceedings which gave rise to the argument which has been addressed to their Lordships are of a complicated character, and their Lordships do not think it necessary, for the purpose of the advice they propose to tender to Her Majesty, to express any opinion upon the merits of the litigation in the Revenue Court or to consider the various provisions of the different Acts relating to the matter. Suffice it to say that these present respondents being dissatisfied with the sale of the property which had been purported to be made on September 24, 1882, presented a petition to the Commissioner on the following September 26, asking that the sale might not be confirmed. Their petition was referred back to the collector for his report. He gave his report to the Commissioner, and finally the Commissioner, on January 25, 1884, refused the petition which had been tendered to him, and confirmed the sale. The present respondents were not satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner, and being, as their Lordships presume, advised that they had the right to do so, they presented a petition for revision, which was in the nature of an appeal to the Board of Revenue, and asked the Board of Revenue to reconsider, and, if necessary, discharge the order which had been made by the Commissioner confirming the sale.