ARUN CHANDRA SINHA Vs. RAHIM BAKSH JAHGIRDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiffs as patnidars to set aside the sales of two patnis under Regulation 8 of 1819. The Subordinate Judge set aside the sales of both the patnis and the zamindar defendant has preferred these appeals. Both these suits were governed by the same judgment and the facts, with regard to both were the same. The arguments addressed with regard to both these appeals before us are the same and one judgment will govern both these appeals.

(2.) The plea of the plaintiffs was principally that the tenures were not patnis so as to invoke the provisions of Regulation 8 of 1819 for holding a sale under that regulation; secondly, that the requisite notices were not served as provided in Section 8, Regulation 8 of 1819. The sales in these cases were mid-year sales for the dues on account of the patnis for the first half year. The Subordinate Judge held that both the tenures were really patnis and the sale under Regulation 8 is, therefore, not incompetent. He also held that there was publication of the usual notices in the zamindar's kacheri and on the defaulters land before 15 Kartik prior to the sale. There was another objection that the publication in the Collector's kacheri was after 15 Kartik, therefore, the sale was invalid on that ground. This argument the Subordinate Judge rejected on the authority of the case of Niamat Ullah V/s. Forbes [1898] 2 C.W.N. 459. The Subordinate Judge, however, held that the sale was bad because there was no publication of the petition of the zamindar in the Collector's kacheri and, secondly, that the notice which was stuck up in the Collector's kacheri did not specify the informations required under Section 8, as the only information that was conveyed by the notice was the date of the sale. Ground 3 on which the Subordinate Judge held that the sale was bad was that the notice stuck up in the Collector's kacheri was not kept there up to the date of the sale as required by Secs.8 and 10, Regulation 8 of 1819. He held that the notices published on 12 November1 1920 were returned to the office on "the following day, that is about three days before the date of sale He held that apart from Ex. B, that is the return of the peon, who stuck up the notices in the Collector's kacheri, there was no other evidence to show how long the notice was kept stuck upon the Collector's notice board. On these grounds the Subordinate Judge set aside the patni sales and decreed the suits.

(3.) On behalf of the zemindar defendant, it has been argued before us that the Subordinate Judge is in error on all the three points on which he held that the ?notice published in the kacheri of the Collector was bad. On behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents, it was argued that the Subordinate Judge was right on all these points, but he was wrong in holding that the tenures in the case were patni tenures and he ought to have held that Regulation 8 of 1819 did not apply to these tenures and, therefore, the sales tire bad. On this ground the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge wore sought to be supported by the plaintiffs- respondents in addition to the grounds which had been found in their favour by the Subordinate Judge.