9911796707
TMI Blog1899 (1) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be remanded, as is suggested in the reference, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the case is brought within Section 18* of the Limitation Act, Act XV of 1877. 2. The costs will abide the results of the re-trial. Henry Thoby Princep, J. 3. I am of the same opinion. The difficulty in this case has arisen from the attempt to consolidate, by reading as one Act, three different Acts of a different character, and passed after some interval of time, relating to the recovery of public demands. To provide against any possible confusion that may arise from such circumstances the words so far as is consistent with the tenor of the Acts specified in Section 2 of Bengal Act VII of 1880, have been used in that section; and accordingly i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here are three cases having a direct bearing, namely, the cases of Pulin Chandra Roy v. Akbar Hossein I.L.R (1893) ., 21 Cal 350, and Bhola Nath Maiti v. Mohinuddin Mahomed I.L.R (1894) ., 21 Cal, 350, note, referred to, and the case of Rajoni Kanta Roy v. Champa Dasi (1898) 2 C.W.N., (S.N.) ccli. Of these, the first two affirm the view indicated in the latter alternative of the question, while the last mentioned case answers the former alternative in the affirmative; and the question is, which of these two views is correct. 7. I am of opinion that the view taken in the two first mentioned cases is correct. Section 8 of Bengal Act VII of 1868 enacts that Every certificate of title which may be given to any purchaser under the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey are not in terms applicable to such cases, been held to be applicable to sales under Bengal Act VII of 1880. And it is argued that, if that is so, there is no reason why Section 28 of Act XI of 1859 should not be held applicable to this case, and the certificate of sale in question should not be hold to have been granted under that section and to come within the scope of Section 8 of Bengal Act VII of 1868. 8. With reference to the first branch of this contention, I do not think than there is any good reason for holding that Section 316 of the Code of Civil Procedure is inapplicable to this case, and that the certificate of sale in (question could not have been granted under that section. 9. Section 19 of Bengal Act VII of 1880 say ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t include any proceedings instituted after the sale for setting it aside. Though that may be so, it does not follow that the procedure for a sale in execution, down to its completion by the grant of a sale certificate, would be inapplicable to a sale under Bengal Act VII of 1880. The learned Judges do not say that the words of Section 19 of Bengal Act VII of 1880 do not include any proceedings instituted after the sale, but they are careful to qualify the words proceedings instituted after the sale by the words for setting it aside. There is, in my opinion, a real distinction between the proceedings leading to the sale and to its completion by the grant of a certificate of sale to the auction-purchaser, and separate and antagonistic, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the presumption just referred to can arise. 12. This brings me to the consideration of the latter branch of the contention, namely, that as certain other provisions of Act XI of 1859 and Bengal Act VII of 1868 have, by virtue of Section 2 of Bengal Act VII of 1880, been held to be applicable to sales under this last mentioned enactment, Section 28 of Act XI of 1859 should, for the same reason, be held to be applicable to this latter class of sales. The cases which have been relied upon are the two cases of Sadhu Saran Singh v. Panchdeo Lal (1886) I.L.R., 14 Cal., 1, and Ram Logan Ojha v. Bhawani Ojha I.L.R (1886) ., 14 Cal, 9, just referred to, and the case of Monindra Nath Mookerji v. Saraswati Dasi I.L.R (1890) ., 18 Cal., 125, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, nevertheless, be held to be a sale to which that section applies. I think this question must be answered in the negative. 14. I may observe that Section 2 of Bengal Act VII of 1880 has been held not to have the effect of making Sections 33 and 34 of Act XI of 1859 applicable to sales in execution of certificates for recovery of public demands, and that Section 2 of Bengal Act I of 1895, the present Public Demands Recovery Act, does not embody the rule of construction contained in Section 2 of the former Act. See Mohibul Huq v. Shew Sahay Singh (1897) I.L.E., 25 Cal., 85, and Mahomed Abdul Hye v. Gajraj Sahay I.L.R (1897) ., 25 Cal., 283. 15. For these reasons and the reasons given in the referring order, I think that the contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
