A. Alagiriswami, J. - (1.)The plaintiff who has failed in both the courts below is the appellant. The suit relates to an extent of 7 grounds situate in what was formerly Puliyur Shrotriem, within the limits of the original jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The suit property belonged to one Abdul Azeez. The plaintiff claims through Abdul Azeez. The defendant claims through the landholder, who is said to have purchased this property in a rent sale held under the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is not necessary to trace the steps by which either party became entitled to put forward his claim. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff claims through the ryot and the defendant claims through the landholder. Therefore, the question of title wholly depends upon the validity of the rent sale held under the provisions of the Act. Ex. B. 6 is the Register of Land Attachments and sales. It shows that an arrear of Rs. 14 -9 -6 was due by the ryot for fasli 1344. The next column in that register shows that the date of receipt of notice was 13th March 1936. This apparently is a notice contemplated under S. 112 of the Act. The next date mentioned in the Register is the date of service and that is given as 19th March 1936. The next column relates to the date of intimation to the landholder and that date is given as 26th March 1936. The next date of importance is 15th June 1936, which is the date of application for sale. This is an application contemplated under S. 114 of the Act, which provides:
If the amount specified in the order under S. 112 has not been paid and if no suit contesting the right of sale has been instituted before the Collector within thirty days from the date of service of the said notice, or if such suit has been instituted and the defaulting ryot has been declared to be liable to pay the amount in whole or in part, the landholder may apply to the Collector for sale.

(2.)S. 115 (1) provides:
If no suit has been instituted, such application shall be made within 45 days of the posting by the Collector of Intimation of service under S. 113.

(3.)Now, it is pointed out that as the application for sale was made after 45 days contemplated under S. 115 (1), that is not a proper application. The next date is the date of sale which is given as 25th July 1936. Under S. 116, the Collector is expected to issue a notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as appear to determine the extent of la(sic)d to be sold, the lots if any in which it shall be sold, the order in which the lots shall be sold and the estimated value of each lot and appoint an officer to conduct the sale. Under S. 117, the selling officer is expected to fix the date, time and place of sale and direct a copy of the order to be posted in the taluk office and cause the contents of the order and the proclamation of sale to be published by beat of drum in the village where the holding is situate and also post a copy of the order and of the proclamation of sale in the village chavadi or in a conspicuous place in the village and send a copy of the order and of the proclamation of sale to the defaulter by post. Sub -S. (2) of this Sec. provides that in fixing the date of sale not less than 30 days shall be allowed from the date on which proclamation by beat of drum was made as aforesaid. In the present case it is contended that as the date of sale was fixed at 18th August 1936 after the order of sale was made on 23rd July 1936 it has contravened the provisions of S. 117 (2) of the Act. The argument on behalf of the appellant is, therefore, that the sale held under provisions of the Act, in which the landholder became the purchaser of the suit holding, it is not one validly held under the provisions of the Act in so far as it contravened two very important provisions of the Act (1) that the application for sale shall be made within 45 days of the posting by the Collector of intimation of service to the landholder and (2) that the sale should be held only 30 days after the date on which publication of sale was made, Whatever may be said about the propriety of the application for sale made more than 45 days after the date of intimation to the landholder of the service of notice on the defaulting ryot, I am of the opinion that the sale held before the expiry of 30 days after the order for sale was made, is clearly in contravention of a very important provision of law. These provisions are made for the benefit of the ryot so as to enable him to pay off the arrears of rent, if any, and I am of opinion that the provision in S. 117 (2) of the Act is mandatory and therefore the sale held in contravention of that provision should be held to be a nullity with the result that no title passed to the landholder by the said sale. If that is so, it would mean that the defendant has got no title in pursuance of the various transactions, by virtue of which he became the successor in title of the landholder.