Skip to content


Subbarayar and ors. Vs. Asirvatha Upadesayyar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR20Mad494
AppellantSubbarayar and ors.
RespondentAsirvatha Upadesayyar and anr.
Excerpt:
revenue recovery act - act ii of 1864 (madras), section 38--sale for arrears of revenue--benami purchase. - - ' 2. the intention clearly was to prevent any plea from being raised that the defaulter's interest did not pass by the sale......on his own behalf but on behalf of the villagers generally. the words of section 38 are 'such sale certificate shall state the property sold and the name of the purchaser, and it shall be conclusive evidence of the fact of the purchase in all courts and tribunalswhere it may be necessary to prove the same, and no proof of the collector's seal or signature shall be necessary, unless the authority before whom it is produced shall have reason to doubt its genuineness.'2. the intention clearly was to prevent any plea from being raised that the defaulter's interest did not pass by the sale. there is nothing in the language of the section to warrant the contention that the legislature intended thereby to preclude proof being given that the person whose name was entered in the certificate.....
Judgment:

1. It is contended that, as the plaintiff's father purchased the land at a sale for arrears of revenue, Section 38 of Act II of 1864 (Revenue Recovery Act) precludes the defendants from proving that the purchase was really made by the plaintiff's father not solely on his own behalf but on behalf of the villagers generally. The words of Section 38 are 'such sale certificate shall state the property sold and the name of the purchaser, and it shall be conclusive evidence of the fact of the purchase in all Courts and tribunalswhere it may be necessary to prove the same, and no proof of the Collector's seal or signature shall be necessary, unless the authority before whom it is produced shall have reason to doubt its genuineness.'

2. The intention clearly was to prevent any plea from being raised that the defaulter's interest did not pass by the sale. There is nothing in the language of the Section to warrant the contention that the Legislature intended thereby to preclude proof being given that the person whose name was entered in the certificate was not the person, or the only person, who acquired a right under the purchase.

2. Where this was intended, the Legislature has made a distinct provision to that effect, as in Section 317, Civil Procedure Code.

3. The evidence objected to was, therefore, rightly admitted, and upon the findings the suit was rightly dismissed. We dismiss this second appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //