KURSHED ALI Vs. DINANATH SURMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the year 1315 B. S. the defendant No. 1 purchased a share in an estate in the district of Sylhet. The total land revenue payable in respect of this estate amounted between Rs. 2 and Rs. 3 per annum including the local rate. The estate was held by a number of co sharers who had opened separate accounts. In the year 1912, the estate was sold, it is said, for arrears of revenue due in respect of the year 1317 B. S. and the second kist of the year 1318 B. S. The purchaser was the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs are his former co-sharers in the estate and they brought this suit to obtain a recnveyance of their shares from him. The Subordinate Judge in the trial Court gave the plaintiffs a decree. On appeal, the learned District Judge has reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.

(3.) On their behalf it is contended that the learned District Judge has not correctly applied the principle of law applicable to the purchase of an estate at a sale for arrears of revenue by one of the co-sharers. The principle referred to is now well settled inasmuch as the legal considerations which arise in the case of such a purchase have been authoritatively stated by the Privy Council in the recent case of Daonandan Prasad v. Janki Singh 39 Ind Cas. 346 : 21 c.W.N. 473 : 1 P.L.W. 294 : 15 A.L.J. 154 : 32 M.L.J. 206 : (1917) M.W.N. 254 : 25 C.L.J. 259 : 21 M.L.T. 240 : 5 L.W. 526 : 19 Bom. L.R. 410 : 44 C. 673 (P.C). Difficulties, however, may still occur in the application of the law so laid down to the facts of particular cases.