MURTUNJOY SINGH Vs. MAHARANI OF BURDWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only questions on which it is necessary for their Lordships to express any opinion in this case are, first, what is the true construction of the Regulation VIII of 1819, Section 8, para. 2; and, secondly, whether the Maharajah of Burdwan, who is the selling zemindar, has done what is necessary for a sale under that Regulation.

(2.) THE material facts are not in dispute. The requisite petition and notice were stuck up at the Collector's kucheree, and the requisite notice at the zemindar's kucheree. The copy or extract which is next directed by the Regulation to be similarly published was not stuck up at the Plaintiff's kucheree at Amerpore, or anywhere else in Amerpore, which is the putni talook in question. Service of that notice was effected on Radhabullub, the Plaintiff's nephew and co-sharer in the talook, at her kucheree in Mahanud, about nine miles from Amerpore. The Plaintiff's Mahanud kucheree is in the same house with that of Radhabullub. It has been strongly urged at the bar that this service must be taken to be service on the Plaintiff herself; but their Lordships do not think it necessary to decide this matter, which, for the purposes of the judgment, they will assume in favour of the zemindar. Would such a service relieve him from giving notice on the lands at Amerpore?

(3.) THE High Court have decided four points; first, that if there is a kucheree on the land of the defaulting putnidar, the notice must be published there; secondly, that by the land of the defaulter is meant that land which the zemindar is seeking to sell for default of rent; thirdly, that if there is no such kucheree, the notice must be published at the principal town or village on the land in question; and fourthly, that it must be published in the manner required, and that service on the putnidar is not sufficient. In all four of these propositions their Lordships agree.