ANANDA CHANDRA NANDY Vs. JHULON SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title to and recovery of khas possession of 4.66 acres of land described in the plaint. The plaintiffs are the purchasers at a sale held on 11 April 1921 under the Public Demands Recovery Act for arrears of rent, due to the Bhowal Raj Estate under the Court of Wards. The sale was confirmed on 14 June 1921, and it is alleged that delivery of possession of the land sold was given to the plaintiffs by the Collector on 26 July of the same year. The plaintiffs ease was that the defendants had not parted with possession of the land and hence they instituted the present suit on 19 September 1923.

(2.) Both the Courts below have given effect to the defendants plea that the processes under the Public Demands Recovery Act had not been regularly served They have held that it has hot been proved that the notice or a copy of the certificate was served on defendant 1, the tenant as required by Section 7 of the said Act, There are also findings to the effect that the processes relating to the sale of the property were not served on the defendant and the story of the delivery of possession to the plaintiffs in pursuance-of the sale is false. On these grounds the lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiffs have thereupon preferred this appeal.

(3.) It has been contended before us on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants that the Courts below are not right in allowing; the defendant to raise the plea as regards the non-service and the invalidity of the processes under the Public Demands Recovery Act. Both the Courts below have-considered this point and are of opinion that the defendant is entitled to challenge the validity of the sale under the Public Demands Recovery Act. The learned Subordinate Judge in the lower appellate Court has held that, inasmuch as the present suit was brought within, the period within which the defendant was entitled to bring a suit under the Public Demands Recovery Act to have the sale set aside, he is entitled to urge-by way of defence all the objections that he could have raised had he brought a suit under the said Act. This view, in our opinion, cannot be maintained. The Public Demands Recovery Act may generally be regarded as a Code in itself and it has laid down the procedure to be observed in effecting a sale under it. It is not contended in this case by the defendant that there were no arrears due from him or that the certificate prepared under Section 4 of the Act was not duly filed. All the objections that the defendant has taken in the present case relate to the-subsequent conduct of the person responsible for the service of the notice and the sale processes. It may be noted here that the plaintiffs are strangers and had nothing to do with the proceedings taken under the Public Demands Recovery Act