DHANU LAL Vs. KULDIP NARAYAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal from concurrent decrees of the Courts below dismissing the plaintiff's claim for Rs. 1000 and interest by way of damages or compensation. The plaintiff's claim with regard to certain other small items was decreed, but nothing arises out of that portion of the decree. The plaintiff was the proprietor of certain property, and the defendants were mukarraridars holding from him. It was alleged that the defendants were liable to pay Government revenue and cesses in respect of the property and that they had failed to do so. Consequently the property had been sold for the payment of these Government dues, and the plaintiff had been compelled to repurchase the property from one Ramkishun for a sum of Rs. 1000. The present suit was brought to recover this sum of Rs. 1000 together with certain costs and for certain other small items which were decreed.

(2.) Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover this sum of Rs. 1000 together with interest and costs and dismissed this portion of the claim. The Courts below have held as a fact that the plaintiff knew of the defendants failure to pay the Government dues. The amounts due totaled Rs. 9, and both the Courts below have found that the sale could have been avoided if the plaintiff had paid this small sum. The plaintiff, though knowing; that this amount was due, allowed the property to be sold and purchased by Ram kishun.

(3.) He subsequently purchased the same for Rs. 1000, and in the view of the lower Courts the plaintiff could not recover, the amount which he spent in recovering; the property because he could have mitigated the whole of the loss by himself paying Rs. 9 before the sale took place. It has been contended by Mr. G.C. Mukherji on behalf of the plaintiff that there was no evidence upon which the Courts could come to the conclusion that the plaintiff knew of the defendants failure to pay the Government revenue or cess or knew of the impending sale. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that notice issued to the plaintiff by the Certificate Officer informing him that his property was going to be sold in a certificate sale was actually served on Walayat Ali (P.W. 3) some time before the sale took place. Walayat Ali was the plaintiff's mukhtar, and in evidence he did not deny the receipt of this notice. All he said was that he could not remember whether he had received the notice or not. He then added that the plaintiff had complained to him that he had not been told that this notice had been served.