MANAKARI VENKAPPA CHARI Vs. HOLAGUNEL POMPANA GOWD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of Bellary, setting aside a sale, for arrears of revenue, of certain land. The sale took place on the 20th May 1912 and the appellant, the 1st defendant in the suit, purchased it. The second defendant is the mortgagee, who apparently was in possession of the land at the time of the sale. The grounds on which the sale was sought to be set aside are set out specifically in paragraph 3 of the plaint, and made part of the issues at the time of the trial. It is clear that grounds (a), (b) and (c) would not be good grounds for a Civil Court to set aside the sale. The Collector has got power, if the sale is vitiated on account of any irregularity in the conduct of it, to set it aside.

(2.) But, it is contended, that the sale was bad, firstly, because it was fraudulently brought about. Supposing that, if made out, would be a sufficient reason for setting aside the sale, it is quite clear that it has not been shown that there was any such collusion or fraud as would make the sale liable to be set aside. The case of the plaintiff on this point rests on Exhibit C, which is an agreement entered into between the 1st and the 2nd defendant, that is, the purchaser and the mortgagee, on the 23rd May 1912, by which they agreed to divide the land among themselves in certain shares. That was after the sale had been held, and it is difficult to conceive how the Judge held that the agreement must be taken to amount to a fraud vitiating the sale. Even if there was an agreement among certain bidders before the sale that they would not bid against teach other or that they would divide the property among themselves after the sale had been concluded, that would not be a sufficient ground for setting aside the sale. It is enough to refer for authority to Mahomad Mira Ravuthar v. Savvasi Vijaya Raghunadha Gopalar 23 M. 227 : 2 Bom. L.R. 640 : 4 C.W.N. 228 27 I A. 17 : 10 M.L.J. 1 : 7 Sar. P.C.J. 661 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 561 (P.C.) which is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In fact here there was a number of bidders, at least 9, and it is not shown that there was any sort of understanding or collusion among them not to bid against each other.

(3.) Then it was suggested that the demand was not served on the plaintiff, the owner of the land, and, therefore, on that ground, the sale was bad. But the point does not appear to have been taken in the form of an issue before the lower Court and, so far as we can gather from the judgment of the learned District Judge, no such question was investigated by him. The validity of such grounds depends upon who was the defaulter within the meaning of the law, and whether the demand was not served be such defaulter in accordance with Section 25 of the Revenue Recovery Act, II of 1864. That section says: Such demand shall be served by delivering a copy to the defaulter, or to some adult male member of his family at his usual place of abode, or to his authorised agent, or by affixing a copy, thereof on some conspicuous part of his last known residence, or on some conspicuous part of the land about to be attached.