Skip to content


Karuppa Tevan Vs. Vasudeva Sastri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR6Mad148
AppellantKaruppa Tevan
RespondentVasudeva Sastri
Excerpt:
revenue recovery act, sections 38, 39 - limitation act, 1877, schedule ii, article 12(e) article 95--suit to net aside alleged fraudulent sale-limitation. - - fourth defendant is therefore a purchaser for valuable consideration in good faith, and no notice of the alleged fraud is alleged against him......a purchaser bona fide and for value. in fact this is not disputed, but the plaintiff relies on the alleged fraud by the collector.4. no evidence whatever was offered to show that defendant was aware that there were no arrears at the revenue sale.5. we think that the plaintiff has stated no case against the fourth defendant and that the suit as regards him is barred.6. we agree with mr. bhashyam ayyangar that the revenue sale of 1876 was completed at the latest at the end of one month after the sale, and that as regards the fourth defendant he is entitled to say that the statute began then to run against the plaintiff. the non-compliance with sections 38 and 39 does not affect the validity of the purchase. there is no provision in the act that in the event of those sections not being.....
Judgment:

Kernan, J.

1. Mr. Gopalachari contends for plaintiff that the revenue sale was fraudulent, as no arrears were due and the sale to the officer who bought for Government was not a valid sale, but merely nominal, and the tenant had still the right to the lands as no arrears were due. That the Collector did not comply with the directions in Sections 38 and 39 of the Revenue Recovery Act, and therefore the sale was not confirmed or concluded as provided by Sections 38 and 39 of the Revenue Recovery Act. That although this may not be so, still the sale was fraudulent, and, as the Judge found that plaintiff was not aware until 1879 that there were no arrears due at the sale, and thus was not aware of the fraud, plaintiff has three years under Article 951 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act, 1877, to bring his suit from the discovery of the fraud, or, at all events, one year from that time.

2. Mr. Bhashyam Ayyangar for the fourth defendant urges that Article 12(c)2 of the Limitation Act, 1877, is conclusive. That the suit to set aside the sale should have been within twelve months from the time the sale would be found conclusive, viz., at the outside at the end of the month after sale given to a purchaser to pay the balance of his purchase money. That the term ' confirmation' in Article 12 refers to confirmation of sales by Courts or perhaps to confirmation of sales in other presidencies where confirmation may be required. That Sections 38 and 39 are mandatory on the Collector, but if he does not comply with them, the sale to a purchaser should not be void. That here he bought in through an officer and the purchase was made for Government, and there was no necessity to give the particulars required in the case of a purchaser other than the Government.

3. No fraud is alleged against the fourth defendant; on the contrary, he is alleged to have bought for , Rs. 80, and in effect, though not in express terms, he set up that he was a purchaser bona fide and for value. In fact this is not disputed, but the plaintiff relies on the alleged fraud by the Collector.

4. No evidence whatever was offered to show that defendant was aware that there were no arrears at the revenue sale.

5. We think that the plaintiff has stated no case against the fourth defendant and that the suit as regards him is barred.

6. We agree with Mr. Bhashyam Ayyangar that the revenue sale of 1876 was completed at the latest at the end of one month after the sale, and that as regards the fourth defendant he is entitled to say that the statute began then to run against the plaintiff. The non-compliance with Sections 38 and 39 does not affect the validity of the purchase. There is no provision in the Act that in the event of those sections not being complied with, the sale should be void. As to fraud, the plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant is in any way entangled with the alleged fraud, or that he knew that the revenue sale was made fraudulently, and at a time when no arrears were due. Fourth defendant is therefore a purchaser for valuable consideration in good faith, and no notice of the alleged fraud is alleged against him. He has got title from the Government who have legally acquired the title formerly held by plaintiff and his father and brother.

7. This appeal must be allowed and the order of the Subordinate Judge set aside, and the suit dismissed with costs throughout as against the fourth defendant.

1

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Article 95:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of suit. Period of limitation. Time from which period begins to run.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To set aside a decree Three years. When the fraud becomes known to

obtained by fraud, or for the party wronged.]

other relief on the ground

of fraud.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Article 12:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of suit. Period of limitation. Time from which period begins to run.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To set aside any of the

following sales:

(c) Sale for arrears of One year. ... When the sale is confirmed or would

Government revenue, or for otherwise have become final and con-

any demand recoverable as clusive had no such suit been brought.]

such arrears,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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