T.R.M. Arunachellam Chetti vs V.R.R.M.A.R. Arunachellam Chetti And ... on 29 September, 1891
Their Lordships cannot accede to that contention. The proceeding in this case was brought by the respondents under Section 311, which deals with material irregularity. The non-compliance with the provisions for posting was a material irregularity. But in the cases of Macnaghten v. Mahabir Pershad Singh, and Arunachellam Chetti v. Arunachellam Chetti it was held that in all cases of irregularity under Section 311 evidence must be given of substantial injury having resulted. In the present case, the decree-holder failed to comply with the full requirements of Section 290, but both on principle and authority their Lordships are of opinion that the case must be treated, as the respondents themselves treated it, as one of material irregularity to be redressed pursuant to the provisions of Section 311, and in the application of that section it was incumbent on the respondents to have proved that they sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity. They gave no such evidence, and it would be extremely improbable that injury could have happened from the non-compliance with the strict letter of Section 290. Their Lordships cannot accept the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner, that loss is to be inferred from the mere fact that a sale was bad without full compliance with the provisions' of Section 290. The section clearly contemplates direct evidence on the subject.