Wilson and Beverley, JJ.
1. This was a suit to set aside a sale under Regulation VIII of 1819, the plaintiff being the proprietor of the tenure sold, and the principal defendant the purchaser at the sale.
2. The first issue raised was, 'whether the sale notification was duly published as required by Regulation VIII of 1819.'
3. Regulation VIII of 1819 lays down a certain procedure with regard to the service of notice: First, that a notice is to be stuck up at the Collector's kachari; secondly, that a similar notice is to be stuck up at the Sudder kachari of the zamindar; and, thirdly, that a copy or extract of so much of the notice as affects a particular defaulter is to be similarly published at the kachari of the defaulter, or at the principal town or village upon the land of the defaulter.
4. The Regulation further provides with regard to the service at the kachari of the defaulter, that the evidence of that fact must be preserved in the way prescribed. In the case of The Maharajah of Burdwan v. Tarasundari Debi L.R. 10 I.A. 19 : I.L.R. 9 Cal. 619 the Privy Council have held that compliance with the directions in the Regulation is absolutely essential to give validity to the sale. They held, therefore, in that particular case that where the service was disputed, compliance with the provisions as to the mode of proof ywas absolutely necessary. In the same way, in a Full Bench case in this Court the Maharajah of Burdwan v. Kristo Kamini Dasi I.L.R. 9 Cal. 931 it was held that the service at the kachari of the defaulter is essential, and that service upon the defaulter himself is not sufficient.
5. In the present case there is no evidence of service at the kachari of the defaulter: there is evidence of service upon the defaulter, but that will not do. There is no evidence, on which any Court could act, of any service by sticking up at the Collector's kachari; and there is no evidence at all of any compliance with the terms of the Regulation as to the preservation of the evidence of service at the Sudder kachari of the defaulter.
6. On these grounds, we think that the decree of the lower Appellate Court cannot be sustained. That decree will be set aside, and the decree of the Munsif will be affirmed with costs in all Courts.