KHYARENNESSA CHOUDHURANI Vs. SATYA BHANU GHOSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the appellants who were the plaintiffs below challenge the validity of the sale of a patni taluq held under Section 14, Reg. 8 of 1819. The sale took place on 19 November 1923 for the arrears due for the first six months of the year 1330 B.S. and the patni taluq was purchased by Kalachand Roy, 2nd party defendant, now respondent. The patni which is held under the Zemindari of Kumar Satya Bhusan Ghosal and others who are the first party defendants belong to plaintiffs and pro forma defendants 11 to 21. Plaintiffs share in the patni is seven annas and that of the pro forma defendants nine annas. The nine annas share holders have not joined with the plaintiffs in the suit to set aside the sale.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge of Tipperah who tried the Suit has refused to set aside the sale and has dismissed plaintiffs suit. On appeal to the learned Additional District Judge of Tipperah this decision has been affirmed. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.

(3.) There are four grounds upon which this appeal rests. We shall deal with the grounds in the order they were dealt with by the learned advocate for the appellants. The first ground taken is that at the date of the sale under the regulation there was in fact another order existing for the sale of the same property and that therefore nothing passed by the subsequent sale which is now in question. It appears that the estate of the first party defendants (the Ghosals) is under the managment of the Court of Wards. The Court of Wards under the certificate procedure as laid down in the Public Demands Recovery Act (3 of 1913) B.C., sold the patni in question on 29 October 1923 and the Court of Wards purchased the property for the nominal sum of Re. 1. The sale was for the arrears of patni rent of 1328 and 1329 B.S. Three days before this sale the Court of Wards presented to the Collector a petition with a statement of the balances of amount of rent for the sale of the patni taluq on the 1st Agrahayan 1330 under Section 8, Clause 3, Patni Regulatiion. In pursuance of these summary proceedings the patni was sold on 19 November 1923. On 28 November 1923 the certificate sale was set aside on the deposit by plaintiff 1 of the amount required to be deposited within 30 days of the date of sale. The certificate sale was therefore never confirmed or made absolute. It is argued, however, for the appellant that the certificate sale was a good sale until it was set aside on 28 November and therefore the sale of the patni under Section 14 on 19 November passed no title to the purchaser defendant. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Pran Gour Mazumdar V/s. Hemanta Kumari Debi [1886] 12 Cal. 597. We are of opinion that the principle of this decision cannot apply to the facts of the present case. The decision in the case cited rested on an application of the law as laid down in Section 316, Act 10 of 1879, before it was amended by Act 12, 1879. Under Act 10 of 1877 the title of the purchaser accrued from the date oi the sale and not from the date of the confirmation of sale as was the case when the amending Act of 1879 was passed. Under the Public Demands Recovery Act the title to immovable property rests in the purchaser after the sale has become absolute when it relates shack to the date of the sale. Section 20(2), Public Demands Act, runs as follows: Where immovable property is sold in execution of a certificate, and such sale has become absolute, the purchaser's right, title and interest shall be deemed to have vested in him from the time the property is sold am not from the time when the sale become absolute.