1888 (10) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the plaint lands to be sold under the Revenue Recovery Act.
2. Alleged fraud and collusion in the sale of the plaint lands.
3. Applicability of the special limitation prescribed in Section 59 of Act II of 1864 versus the general Limitation Act.
4. Validity of the sale proceedings under Act II of 1864.
5. Service of notice and procedural compliance under the Revenue Recovery Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of the plaint lands to be sold under the Revenue Recovery Act:
The plaint lands, acquired by the plaintiff's undivided brother, Krishna Reddi, were sold under the Revenue Recovery Act due to arrears on other lands included in the same patta as that of defendant No. 1. The court found no doubt about their liability to be sold, as they stood in the patta of defendant No. 1. Despite the plaintiff's continued payment of kist for the lands, the arrears on other lands led to the attachment and sale of the plaint lands.

2. Alleged fraud and collusion in the sale of the plaint lands:
The plaintiff sought relief on the grounds that defendant No. 2, the purchaser, colluded with defendant No. 1 and village officials to deprive him of the land. The plaintiff alleged that the sale was fraudulent, held secretly, and without proper notice, thus violating the provisions of Act II of 1864. The defendants pleaded limitation in bar of the claim, relying on Section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Act.

3. Applicability of the special limitation prescribed in Section 59 of Act II of 1864 versus the general Limitation Act:
The court addressed whether the suit was governed by the special limitation of six months under Section 59 of Act II of 1864 or by the general Limitation Act. The court held that Section 59 applies to cases of fraud, and the cause of action arises from the date the fraud was discovered. However, the period of limitation remains six months. The plaintiff had knowledge of the alleged fraud more than six months before the suit, rendering the suit barred by limitation.

4. Validity of the sale proceedings under Act II of 1864:
The court examined whether the sale proceedings, despite irregularities, were valid under Act II of 1864. It concluded that the proceedings, though defective, were taken professedly under the Act. The court emphasized that the limitation period refers to the factum rather than the validity of the sale. The sale, even if irregular, must be considered a proceeding under the Act for limitation purposes.

5. Service of notice and procedural compliance under the Revenue Recovery Act:
The plaintiff argued that neither he nor the pattadar was served with a notice to pay the arrears, violating Sections 25 and 26 of the Act. The court acknowledged that the Collector must serve a written demand on the defaulter and can only proceed with attachment and sale if the defaulter neglects to pay. However, it held that the omission to follow prescribed procedures constitutes an irregularity but does not negate the sale as a proceeding under the Act.

Conclusion:
The court held that the suit was governed by the special limitation prescribed in Section 59 of Act II of 1864, subject to the provisions of Section 18 of Act XV of 1877. The suit should have been brought within six months from the discovery of the fraud. Consequently, the suit was barred by limitation, and the sale proceedings, despite procedural irregularities, were considered valid under the Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the special limitation period for suits challenging revenue sales under Act II of 1864.