9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is barred by the Law of Limitation. 2. Whether the sale complied with the statutory requirements under the Bengal Act VII of 1880. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Law of Limitation The defendant argued that the suit was barred by the Law of Limitation. The sale in question took place on September 24, 1882, and was confirmed by the Commissioner on January 25, 1884. The present plaint was filed on July 26, 1887. According to the Law of Limitation, specifically Article 12 of the second Schedule, a suit to set aside a sale must be brought within twelve months from the time when the sale is confirmed or would otherwise have become final and conclusive. However, the Court below decided to exclude certain periods from the limitation period under Section 14 of the Act. This section allows exclusion of time during which the plaintiff was prosecuting another civil proceeding in good faith, which was founded on the same cause of action but could not be entertained due to a defect of jurisdiction or a similar reason. The litigation involved a series of complicated proceedings. Initially, the plaintiffs presented a petition to the Commissioner on September 26, 1882, which was eventually refused on January 25, 1884. They then appealed to the Board of Revenue, which set aside the Commissioner's order on August 12, 1884, leaving the sale unconfirmed. Subsequent proceedings before the collector and the Commissioner resulted in the matter being referred back to the Board of Revenue, which on August 21, 1886, made a final order reviving the Commissioner's order of January 25, 1884. The Court concluded that there was no final, conclusive, and definitive order confirming the sale until the Board of Revenue's final judgment on August 21, 1886. Therefore, the suit filed within twelve months from this date was not barred by the Law of Limitation. Issue 2: Compliance with Statutory Requirements The sale was challenged on the grounds of non-compliance with the provisions of the Bengal Act VII of 1880. The Act requires that a certificate in Form No. 2 be made by the collector, certifying the amount of arrears and filed in his office. This certificate has the force and effect of a decree of a civil court. The Court found that the documents presented did not conform to the statutory requirements. The documents referred to were mere notices under Section 9, not certificates under Section 7. They did not contain the necessary certification by the collector as required by Form No. 2. One document was a notice of demand, and another was a notice informing the debtor that a certificate had been made, which was not equivalent to an actual certificate. The absence of a proper certificate meant there was no legal basis for the sale. The stringent provisions of the Act, which require strict compliance, were not met. Therefore, the sale was invalid. Conclusion The Court concluded that the suit was not barred by the Law of Limitation and that the sale did not comply with the statutory requirements of the Bengal Act VII of 1880. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.
|
