Skip to content


Rasbehary Mookerjee and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR9Cal591
AppellantRasbehary Mookerjee and ors.
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council
Excerpt:
sale for arrears of revenue - revenue-paying estate--sale of share of an estate--recorded proprietors--omission of names of proprietors--irregularity--act xi of 1859, sections 6 and 33. - .....no. 1312.2. the ground upon which the lower appellate court has set aside the sale is that the sale notification under section 6, act xi of 1859, did not contain the names of all the recorded proprietors of this share, but only of one of them, talebulla. section 6 requires that a notification should be issued in the language of the district specifying the estates or shares of estates which are to be sold. the district judge is of opinion that unless the names of all the recorded proprietors are given, an estate, or share of an estate, cannot be considered to be specified within the meaning of section 6. we are unable to agree in this view of the law. the section distinctly says that it is the estate or the share of an estate which is to be specified. if it were the intention of the.....
Judgment:

Mitter, (Offg.) C.J.

1. This is a suit to set aside a revenue sale of the share of an estate called Aima Mungulpore bearing Towzi No. 1312.

2. The ground upon which the lower Appellate Court has set aside the sale is that the sale notification under Section 6, Act XI of 1859, did not contain the names of all the recorded proprietors of this share, but only of one of them, Talebulla. Section 6 requires that a notification should be issued in the language of the district specifying the estates or shares of estates which are to be sold. The District Judge is of opinion that unless the names of all the recorded proprietors are given, an estate, or share of an estate, cannot be considered to be specified within the meaning of Section 6. We are unable to agree in this view of the law. The section distinctly says that it is the estate or the share of an estate which is to be specified. If it were the intention of the Legislature that the names of the recorded proprietors should be also inserted, the section would have contained a provision to that effect in distinct words.

3. In this case it is not shown that the share of the estate which was sold was not properly specified. All that has been established in; the lower Court is that instead of the names of all the recorded proprietors being mentioned in the sale notification, the name of only one of them, namely Talebulla, was inserted. As the section in question does not require the names of the recorded proprietors to be mentioned in the notification, the mistake of not inserting the names of all the recorded proprietors is not an irregularity within the meaning of that section.

4. We, therefore, reverse the decree of the lower Appellate Court and dismiss the plaintiff 's suit with costs.

5. In Appeal No. 865, the purchaser is the appellant. We are of opinion that the purchaser might have joined the Government in preferring an appeal. We, therefore, direct that the plaintiff 's will pay to the defendants, namely, the Secretary of State for India and the purchaser Purnu Chunder Singh, only one set of costs throughout the litigation.


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