DASHARATHI GHOSH Vs. KHONDKAR ABDUL HANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who was successful in the Court of first instance but whose suit has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) The suit was for setting aside a revenue sale, held on the 27 June 1921, in respect of Towzi No. 1366/2 of the Hooghly Collectorate, named mehal Anantarampur in Pargana Balia, Thana Chanditala, District Hooghly. The towzi belonged to the plaintiff. The revenue payable for it is annas 14, and cesses annas 12 pies 9 only. The amount is due on the 28 March every year. The plaintiff sent the amount due for 1921 on the 18 March 1921, through the Post Office. It was received in the Collectorate on the 24 March 1921, but it was not credited in the proper register as in the money-order the number of the towzi was given as 66 and the name of the thana as Jangipara. The Collector's Office on receipt of the money noted on the acknowledgment that there was a discrepancy and so the money was kept in deposit in the Collectorate, and not credited in the accounts of the plaintiff's estate. This receipt came back to the plaintiff on the 3 April 1921. The plaintiff's case was that he never cared to look into the receipt and only saw it after he had heard of the sale. The plaintiff heard about the sale after the time for preferring an appeal to the Commissionor was over. Hence he filed this suit.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit but that decree has been reversed, and the suit dismissed by the District Judge. The Subordinate Judge held that the sale was premature. The District Judge has held otherwise and has given very good reasons for his view. This view has not been seriously challenged before us and, in my opinion, rightly so.