SUKLAL BANIKYA Vs. BI; DHU MINDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit to set aside a sale held under the Revenue Sale Law (XI of 1859).

(2.) The sale was in respect of a residuary share only. Various irregularities were alleged in the plaint, but the learned Subordinate Judge held that the omissions to mention some of the kismats in the notice under Section 6 was an irregularity, and further that the understatement of the Government revenue in the sale proclamation was also an irregularity. He was of opinion that the first named irregularity, namely, the omission to mention some of the kismats in the notice under Section 6 resulted in substantial injury to the plaintiff and accordingly set aside the sale.

(3.) The defendant purchaser has preferred this appeal.