BHAWANI KOER Vs. AFZAL HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of four suits, which were brought by various parties having interests in an estate known as Tarwan to have the sale of the mehal, which had been sold for arrears of revenue under the provisions of Act XI of 1859, set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge of Gya has set aside the sale on various grounds, expressed in his findings on the issues, which he laid down for trial. He has found that there were irregularities in publishing and conducting the sale and that by reason of those irregularities the plaintiffs sustained substantial loss and injury. He has found that it was necessary that notice under Section 6 of Act XI of 1859 should be issued, and that such notice was neither issued nor served. He has found that there was irregularity in issuing and in serving the notice under Section 7 of the Act and that that affected the revenue sale in question. He has found that it was necessary to issue notice to the co-sharers in the mehal Tarwan under Section 14 of the Act and that no such notice was issued or served. He has also found that there was a defect in the sale proclamation process under Section 6 of the Act, and that there was irregularity in the service thereof. He has further gone on to find another irregularity with respect to Section 14, but that appears to be a repetition of the earlier issue relating to that section, which he has found in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The estate in question was one for portions of which separate accounts had been opened. Some few years previous to the sale, which gave rise to the present suit, it had been sold for arrears of revenue and subsequently disputes arose between the old proprietors and the purchasers at the revenue sale, and the result of these disputes was that in January 1901 the District Judge appointed a common manager under the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Default was made in paying the September kist of the ijmali share of the mehal and accordingly on the 3 January 1902 the ijmaili share of this estate was put up for sale, but there were no bids at any rate up to the extent of the revenue in arrears. Whereupon the Collector acting, under the provisions of Section 14 of the Revenue Sale Law stepped the sale and declared that the entire mehal would be put up to sale, if the cosharers did not purchase the share in arrear by paying the whole arrear due to the Government from such share within 10 days. No such purchase was made within 10 days after that declaration with the result that under the provisions of Section 14 the entire mehal was put up for sale on the 27 of March and was sold for the sum of Rs. 5,100.

(3.) The plaintiffs alleged that this sum was grossly inadequate to the value of the estate, and they alleged, though their allegation is not admitted by the defendant, that the real value of the property was 3 lakhs of Rupees. They alleged that they had been much injured by the low price at which the estate was sold, and they accordingly appealed to the Collector to set aside the sale on various grounds, which appear in their grounds of appeal taken to that officer. The Collector declined to set aside the sale with the result that the four suits, which have given rise to the present appeals, were brought.