RAMDHARI SINGH Vs. SALIGRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a miscellaneous second appeal by the judgment-debtors. The relevant facts he within a short compass. The respondent-decree-holders obtained a decree for arrears of rent in 1941. This decree was put in execution and the holding of the judgment-debtors was sold and purchased by the decree-holders on 6-4-1943. The holding consisted of 17 kathas and 15 dhurs and was purchased for a consideration of Rs. 23-14-9, which was the decretal amount. On 29-8-1943, the respondent-decree-holders, it is stated, obtained delivery of possession. On 9-10-1947, the judgment-debtors made an application for setting aside the sale on various grounds, one of which was that the decree was executed without jurisdiction. It was also alleged that all the processes in execution were fraudulently and deliberately suppressed and. property which was worth Rs. 2,000/- was sold for a grossly inadequate price. The judgment-debtors alleged that they came to know of the sale on 10-9-1947, and they filed the application within one month of the date of knowledge.

(2.) The learned Munsif who dea.lt with the application in the first instance held that no notice under Section 158B(2), Bihar Tenancy Act, was issued; the notice which purported to issue under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P. C., was not served on the judgment-debtors; there was no compliance with the provisions of Section 163, Eibar Tenancy Act; the processes of attachment, sale proclamation and 'dakhaldehani' were not served on the spot; and the judgment-debtors came to know of trie sale on 10-9-1947. On these findings, the learned Munsil held that the sale was without jurisdiction; and that in any event, there was maienai irregularity and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale and the judgment-debtors had suffered material injury by reason of the irregularity and fraud. The learned Munsif held that the application was within time and accordingly he allowed the application with costs and set aside the sale.

(3.) There was an appeal to the learned District Judge. The Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal, reversed the finding of the learned Munsif on the question of limitation. The learned Additional District Judge held that the evidence of one of the judgment-debtors itself showed that he came to Know of the sale on 7th or 8th September 1947, and inasmuch as the application for setting aside the sale was filed on 9-10-1947 it was filed out oi time by two days. The learned Additional District Judge further held that immediately after the auction purchase ana the delivery of possession, the respondent decree-holders had settled the land with a tenant named Rajkurnar Singh and that no notice of the application was given to Rajkumar Singh. The learned Additional District Judge held that in the absence of notice to Rajkumar Singh, the application for setting aside the sale was not maintainable. The learned Additional District Judge affirmed, however, the other findings of the learned Munsif, namely, the finding that the property was grossly undervalued and sold for an inadequate price which caused substantial loss to the judgment-debtors and that the notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P. C., and the processes in execution were not. served on the judgment-debtors. In view of his finding on the question of limitation, the learned Additional District Judge allowed, the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Munsil.