Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The first and the main point for our consideration is whether the revenue sale was held in an illegal manner contrary to the provisions of Act 11 of 1859 by reason of which the plaintiffs sustained substantial injury. If these facts are not established by evidence the sale cannot be annulled under Sections 33, Revenue Sale Law. The Subordinate Judge has found that the notification under Section 6 of the Act was defective in material particulars. The notification did not state that the entire mahal was situated within the district of Tippera and that no part of it was within the district of Mymensingh. It did not mention the names of all the proprietors and did not specify the shares that were excluded from sale. Furthermore, the service of this notification was not in compliance with the provisions of Act 11 of 1859 and as the entire property was situated within the District of Tippera a copy of the notification under Section 6 should have been affixed in the Court of the District Judge of Tippera and not in the Court of the District Judge of Mymensingh. As regards the notification under Section 7 of Act 11 of 1859, the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is that the description of the property in some of these notifications was erroneous and misleading and moreover the notifications were not served in the locality at all. The learned Subordinate Judge further held on evidence that the value of the property was much above us. 5000 and by reason of the irregularities mentioned above it was sold for an inadequate price of Rs. 65 only which could not but result in substantial loss to the plaintiffs. This last finding has not been challenged before us in this appeal and it is not disputed that the plaintiffs have sustained substantial loss by reason of the sale. Hence if it can be proved that the inadequacy of price was the result of any irregularity or non-compliance with the provisions of the Act the sale undoubtedly should be set aside. We will first consider what were the irregularities, if any, with regard to the notifications under Sections 6 and 7 of Act 11 of 1859. Now Section 6 runs as follows:

6. We now come to the notification under Section 7 of the Act. We may accept the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that one of the notices issued under Section 7 in the present case was served in the wrong place with a misleading description of the property. In this notice the lands were described as situated in Mouza Dobajail within thana Bajitpur, District Mymensingh. As a matter of fact, there is no Mouza Dobajail within the Mymensingh District appertaining to thana Bajitpur and the learned Subordinate Judge might not be wrong in holding that this notice was never served at all in Mouza Dobajail which lies within police station Sarail in the District of Tippera. This is undoubtedly an irregularity and the question is whether the sale was in any way affected by this irregularity. The notification under Section 7 of Act 11 of 1859, is not to give proprietors notice of the fact that an estate is to be put up to sale. It is intended solely for the protection of raiyats and under raiyats and to prevent them from paying to the defaulters any rent after the latest date of payment. Ordinarily, therefore, any omission of a notification under Section 7, [Revenue Sale Law, is not calculated to affect bidders of the property and if such omission is to be relied upon as an irregularity for purposes of setting aside a revenue sale under Section 33 of the Act, it must be proved affirmatively that the irregularity had really the effect of misleading bidders and caused substantial loss to the proprietors. Mr. Chakravarty relies in this connexion upon the evidence of one Sabdar Ali, who is witness 6 for the plaintiffs. All that he says is that if the sale notices had been served in the mahal he might in combination with other tenants have tried to purchase the property. He admits that he did not make any attempt to purchase this property on various occasions in the past when it was put up for sale and it is extremely doubtful whether he had the means of purchasing it at all. We cannot say, on the evidence on the record, that the irregularities in connexion with the notification under Section 7 of Act 11 of 1859, in any way affected the sale. Our conclusion therefore is that the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs is insufficient to show that the sale was held in contravention of the provisions of Act 11 of 1859, resulting in substantial loss to them. The sale cannot therefore be set aside even though the property was sold at an inadequate price.