MAHOMED MEERA RAVUTHAR Vs. SAVVASI VIJAYA RAGHUNADHA GOPALAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit in which this Appeal is presented was commenced in the year 1882. The appellants whose names are now on the record were substituted for the original appellant, the plaintiff in the suit and appellant below, on his death; but there has been no change of interest, and it will be convenient to use the name of appellant for all. The appellant sought to enforce a charge on the zemindari estate of Singavanam against the then owners, the present respondent who was a minor, and his father, who has since died. Another suit was brought by another person for the same purpose in the year 1883. Both plaintiffs obtained decrees. When the respondent's father died the estate passed into the management of the Court of Wards. In March, 1891, the appellant obtained an order in execution of his decree for sale of eight villages, parts of the estate. They were sold, apparently in execution of both decrees, in the month of April, 1891. There was then due in the suit of 1882 upwards of Rs. 60,000, and in the suit of 1883 upwards of Rs. 17,000. The appellant who held the decree in the suit of 1882 obtained leave to bid at the Bale, and he was declared to be the purchaser. He took possession, and was in possession when the present proceedings commenced.

(2.) IN April, 1894, the respondent came of age, and the Court of Wards handed over the Singavanam estate to him. On May 15, 1894, he presented a petition, under Section 311 of the Civil Procedure Code, for the purpose of annulling the sale of 1891. That is the section which empowers persons whose property has been sold to set the sale aside on the ground of material irregularity in publishing or conducting it. In his petition the respondent alleged a number of irregularities, but as to all except one the Courts below have found, either that the allegation was erroneous, or that the irregularity had not caused substantial injury.

(3.) THE Subordinate Judge treats this charge as raising the following points for decision: (1.) Whether there was any agreement between the Pappanad zemindar and the counter-petitioner on the date of sale, 6th April, 1891, and (2.) Whether in consequence thereof, intending purchasers were prevented from bidding at auction.