9911796707
TMI Blog1896 (2) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade. 3. Before discussing that question there is another question which requires decision. The defendant pleaded in the Court below, and his learned Counsel before their Lordships has argued, that the suit is barred by the Law of Limitation; and it is necessary for this purpose to consider the dates. The sale, which it is sought to set aside, was made on September 24, 1882. It purported to have been confirmed by the Commissioner on January 25, 1884. The present plaint was not filed until July 26, 1887, and therefore if there were nothing more in the case than that, and if it was really confirmed in a final and conclusive manner on the date mentioned in 1884, the suit would be barred under the provisions of the Law of Limitation. It would come within art. 12 of the second Schedule, namely, a suit to set aside any of the following sales:---A sale in execution of a decree of a civil court; a sale in pursuance of a decree or order of a collector or other officer of the revenue, as to which the time of limitation is only twelve months from the time when the sale is confirmed or would otherwise have become final and conclusive had no such suit been brought. It was decided in the Court be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves was irregular on the ground of want of jurisdiction, is not material for the present purpose, because it is not disputed that the parties were proceeding in good faith; and it is apparent from the judgment of the Board of Revenue that the question was one of very considerable difficulty. It is to be observed that the effect of that order of August 12, 1884, was to leave the sale unconfirmed. The order of the Commissioner confirming the sale was discharged, and the sale therefore was left unconfirmed. There was no actual sale (supposing it had been otherwise regular) which would give the purchaser a title to enter into possession or to enjoy the fruits of the sale, or, in other words, there was no real sale to the benefit of which the purchaser was entitled. 6. Their Lordships now come to the proceedings before the collector. The collector made an order declining to confirm the sale from which there was an appeal to the Commissioner who, on March 11, 1886, held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; and therefore the order of the collector refusing to confirm the sale stood. From that decision the present appellant appealed to the Board of Revenue, and it came a se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht. It cannot be said in the opinion of their Lordships when the parties were litigating ,before the Revenue Courts as to whether the sale should be confirmed or not---because that was the object of the litigation before the Revenue Courts---that the sale had become either final or conclusive. In fact, their Lordships are of opinion that there was not during the period which had elapsed between the date of the sale and August 21, 1886, any sale to set aside which a suit could have been brought. Therefore their Lord ships are of opinion that the confirmation dates only from August, 1886, and that the Law of Limitation is not a defence to this action. 9. Passing to the merits, their Lordships do not think it necessary to say very much with regard to them. Various grounds were mentioned in the proceedings and pleadings in this suit, and-in the judgments of the Subordinate Judge, and of the High Court---in which the case was very fully discussed and considered---upon which it was alleged by the present respondents that the sale was invalid. Their Lordships do not think it necessary to express an opinion upon all those grounds because there is one ground upon which they entirely agree w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven, and that those particulars should be certified by the hand of the proper officer appointed by the Act for the purpose. If no such certificate is given then the whole basis of the proceeding is gone. There is no judgment, there is nothing corresponding to a judgment or decree for payment of the amount, and there is no foundation for the sale. The authority to proceed to the sale is based on the certificate which has the effect, as has been already pointed out, of a judgment or decree, and if no judgment or decree is given, and no certificate is filed having the force or effect of a judgment or decree, there can be no valid sale at all. 11. In the present case Mr. Arathoon---who certainly argued this Case for his client with as much zeal as any counsel could bring to bear upon it---utterly failed to point out to their Lordships in this voluminous record any document corresponding with the certificate which was required by the Act as the foundation for the statutory sale. The documents he referred to when examined are found not to purport to be certificates under Section 7 at all, nor do they comply with the requirements of the form stated in the second Schedule of the Act. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
