Skip to content


Golam Chunder Dey Vs. Nana Kumar Roy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1891)ILR18Cal422
AppellantGolam Chunder Dey
RespondentNana Kumar Roy
Cases Referred and Ganga Prasad v. Jag Lal Rai I.L.R.
Excerpt:
sale in execution of decree - proclamation--civil procedure code, act xiv of 1883, sections 289, 311 and 312--substantial injury--irregularity. - .....not having been fixed up in the collector's office as required by section 289 of the code of civil procedure. that question, we think, must be answered in the negative. there is nothing in the code of civil procedure which renders that formality a necessary preliminary to the validity of the sale. we express no opinion in answering the questions now before us upon the question which has been decided by the allahabad court in jasada v. mathura das i.l.r. 9 all. 511 and ganga prasad v. jag lal rai i.l.r. 11 all. 333 namely, whether non-compliance with the requirements of section 290 of the code of civil procedure does or does not invalidate a sale held, or purporting to be held, under chapter xix. that question is not before us, and we do not deal with it. in the present case we are.....
Judgment:

Petheram, Kt., C.J., Pigot, O'Kinealy, Macpherson and Ghose, JJ.

1. The answer to both questions put to us on this reference depends, in truth, upon one point alone, namely, whether the sale of revenue-paying land is ipso facto void by reason of a copy of the sale proclamation not having been fixed up in the Collector's office as required by Section 289 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That question, we think, must be answered in the negative. There is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure which renders that formality a necessary preliminary to the validity of the sale. We express no opinion in answering the questions now before us upon the question which has been decided by the Allahabad Court in Jasada v. Mathura Das I.L.R. 9 All. 511 and Ganga Prasad v. Jag Lal Rai I.L.R. 11 All. 333 namely, whether non-compliance with the requirements of Section 290 of the Code of Civil Procedure does or does not invalidate a sale held, or purporting to be held, under Chapter XIX. That question is not before us, and we do not deal with it. In the present case we are of opinion that the omission to fix up a copy of the sale proclamation in the Collector's office, in neglect of the provisions of Section 289 of the Code, was an irregularity the remedy for which can only be by an application under Section 311.

2. Being of opinion that the sale in question is not invalidated by the omission referred to, we think that the first question must be answered in the negative, inasmuch as an appeal from an order dismissing an application under Section 311 of the Code cannot be the subject-matter of a second appeal. Both questions submitted to us by the referring Bench must therefore be answered in the negative.


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