VADLUR CHINNA NAGI REDDY Vs. DEVINENI VENKATRAMANIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The property in suit belonged to the 2nd defendant. He obtained a loan under the Agricultural Improvements Act from Government in 1897. That loan was payable by installments; while some of the installments still remained unpaid, he sold the land to the plaintiff in 1902; owing to the default in the payment of one of the installments, the land was put up to sale by the Government and was, purchased by the 1st defendant. Plaintiff sues for a declaration that the revenue sale is not binding on him. It is found that no notice of the sale which was held in 1910 was served on the 2nd defendant or the plaintiff; but that, when the 1st defendant took proceedings under Act II of 1864 to obtain possession, plaintiff who had notice of the application objected to the delivery on the ground that the sale was not binding on him; this was in November 1912. The suit was instituted on the 9th June 1913, more than six months after the order for possession.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge held that the sale was invalid, as there was no demand on the 2nd defendant to pay the instalment and also because no notice of the sale was served on him. He, however, held that as the proceedings to obtain possession were taken to the knowledge of the plaintiff more than 6 months before the suit, the suit was barred by limitation under Section 59 of Act II of 1864.

(3.) We think he has come to the right conclusion. The learned Vakil for the appellant contended that the sale was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as no notice of it was given to the plaintiff. In a very similar case it was held by a Full Bench of this Court in Venkata v. Chngadu 12 M. 168 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 467 (F.B.). that failure to serve notice did not affect the jurisdiction of the Collector to sell the property. Under the Revenue Recovery Act there are some requisites which go to the root of the jurisdiction. As pointed out by Muthuswami Aiyar, J., in Venkata v. Chengadu 12 M. 168 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 467 (F.B.), if there are no arrears, or if the land on which the arrear is due is not included in the holding of the alleged defaulter, any proceeding taken against such a person would be ultra vires. These are the essential conditions, compliance with which alone can invest the Collector with jurisdiction to take proceedings under the Act. If they are not complied with, the sale would be without jurisdiction. There are other conditions which the Act enjoins upon the Collector which are not conditions precedent. In conducting the sale certain formalities have to be observed. If they are hot conformed to, the Collector, to borrow the language of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, will be acting illegally or irregularly in the exercise of his jurisdiction. No doubt such an illegal exercise of jurisdiction would vitiate the proceedings. But that is not enough to enable the plaintiff to obtain a declaration that the sale is not binding on him, if he does not sue within the period fixed by the Act. The proceedings taken being intra vires unless the suit is brought within 6 months to set the sale aside on the ground of irregularity or illegality, the plaintiff s suit will be barred.