KARIBANDI VEERANNA Vs. SRIPADA LAKSHMIPATHI SOMAYAJULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit filed in the Court of the Assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam, to set aside a sale of land under the Madras Estates Land Act for arrears of rent on the ground that there had been material irregularity and fraud in connection with the sale. The sale was conducted by the Revenue Inspector and the auction purchaser was the Village Munsif, the second respondent in this appeal. The property was bought in the joint names of the second respondent and the first respondent, who were defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. It was held by the trial Court that the first respondent was not in fact a purchaser but had merely lent his name to the second respondent. Section 107 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, states that no officer holding a sale of property under the Act and no person employed by or subordinate to such officer shall either directly or indirectly bid for, acquire or attempt to acquire any interest in any property sold at a sale of this nature. The second respondent as the Village Munsif was a person subordinate to the officer conducting the sale. THIS was conceded in the Courts below. The Assistant Agent who tried the suit held that the sale was bad because this section had been infringed and for other irregularities. On appeal to the Government Agent. East Godawari, the decision of the trial Court was set aside and the sale confirmed.

(2.) A second appeal was preferred to this Court and was heard by King, J., who confirmed the decision of the first appellate Court on the ground that the case did not fall within the principle laid down in Nugent V/s. Nugent (1908) 1 Ch. 546. In Nugent V/s. Nugent (1908) 1 Ch. 546, a receiver appointed by the Court to have charge of certain property purchased the property without the leave of the Court. It was held that the receiver being in a fiduciary position, having full knowledge and special opportunities of knowing the rentals of the property and the other circumstances, was just in that position which brings a case within the rule of the Court that a person in a fiduciary position having special means of knowledge, ought not to be allowed to buy or to bid for the property without the leave of the Court. The decision in Nugent V/s. Nugent (1908) 1 Ch. 546 is not in point. What the Court has to consider is Section 107 and that section says that a subordinate to the officer conducting a sale shall not buy. A subordinate to the officer conducting the sale did buy and therefore the property was sold to a person who was prohibited by law from purchasing. The prohibition in the section is not conditional but absolute. In these circumstances the decision of the trial Court must be restored and the sale set aside. The appellant is entitled to his costs here and in the Courts below.