KANHAIYALAL versus DR. D.R. BANAJI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 333 · Decided: 31-03-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.O.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
333 
allowed depreciation and rehabilitation on an erroneous 
basis, we would set aside the order of the Labour 
Appellate Tribunal and would restore that of the 
Industrial Tribunal with this modification that the 
Respondent shall make available the 
additional 
amount required for payment of the proportional bonus 
to the artisans. 
• The appeal is, therefore, allowed to this extent, the 
order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside and 
the award of the Ind11strial Tribunal restored with this 
modification that the respondent shall also provide an 
additional amount for these three years for payment 
to the artisans of proportionate bonus on the basis of 
the "Unit System". As neither of the parties have 
succeeded in their main contentions, the fair order in 
regard to costs should be that the parties do bear their 
respective costs throughout. 
KANHAIYALAL 
v. 
Dr. D.R. BANAJI AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM and SuBBA RAO JJ.) 
R~venue Sale-Property in possession of Receiver appointed by 
Court-Absence of leave of Court for sale-Notice to Receiver not 
given-Whether sale illegal-Whether suit to set aside sale by civil 
court barred-Berar Land Revenue Code, I928, ss. I55, IS6, Ij7, I92. 
The appellant was the auction-purchaser of the property at 
a revenue sale held under the provisions of the Berar Land 
Revenue· Code, 1928, for recovery of land revenue due. The 
property at the time of the attachment and sale was in the posses-
sion of a Receiver appointed under Or. 40, R. 1 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure by the Jilombay High Court. Notice to the 
Receiver, however, was not given of the attachment and sale of 
the pi;operty, nor was any leave of the Court taken for the sale. 
In a suit instituted by the Receiver for a declaration that the sale 
was a nullity o~, at any rate, was illegal and liable to be set aside, 
the auction-purchaser contended that the sale without notice to 
• 
Workmen of 
Assam Co. 
v. 
Assam Co. Ltd. 
Kapur ]. 
lvJarcll JI. 
• 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1959] 
z958 
the Receiver or without impleading him was not void but only 
voidable and that, in any event. the suit was barred by the pro-
Kanhaiyalal 
visions of ss. 157 and 192 of the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928 : 
D 
D ;· 
. .. 
Held, (1) that the sale was illegal in the absence of the leave 
'· 
d. 0 ·hB,.naJ> of the Court and the necessary notice to the Receiver; 
an 
t ers 
· 
Sinha]. 
(2) that the suit was not barred by any of the provisions of 
the Code. 
Sub-section (1) of s. 157 of the Code which bars the institu-
tion of a suit to set aside a sale is confined only to claims on 
the ground of irregularity or mistake i11 publishing or conducting 
' 
the sale as referred to in s. 156, and suits based on other grounds, 
including those referred to in sub-s. (2) of s. 157, are not within 
the prohibition of sub-s. (1). 
Section 192 of the Code is not applicable as the suit is not 
one simpliciter to set aside the sale held by the revenue authori-
ties, but one for a declaration and consequential relief on the 
grounds taken by the Receiver not covered by the specific pro-
visions of the Code for setting aside the sale which the several 
authorities under the Code have been empowered . to determine, 
decide or dispose of within the meaning of s. 192(1). 
CIVIL APPELLATE Jt:RISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
128of1954. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Janu-
ary 25, 1951, of the Nagpur High Court in L. P. Appeal 
Nq. 10 of 1945, arising out of the judgment and decree 
dated March 29, 1945, of the said High Court in Second 
Appeal No. 453 of 1941, against judgment and decree 
dated April 5, 1941, of the Adell. District Judge, Yeot-
mal in Civil Appeal No. 47-A of 1940 arising out of 
the judgment and decree dated September 14, 1940, of 
the Add!. Sub-Judge, :First Class, Yeotmal in Civil Suit 
No. 72-A of 1940 . 
"Radhey Lal, for the appellant . 
. P. N. Bhagwati, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and 
Rameshwar-Nath, for respondent No.· I. 
· R. H. Dheb'fl,r, for respondent No. 2. 
1958. 
March 31. 
The following Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
SINHA J.-The main question in controversy iJJ. this 
appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the High 
Court of Judicature at Nagpur (as jt then was}, is 
• 
·. 
T 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
335 
whether the provisions of the Berar Land Revenue 
Code, 1928 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the 
Ktmhaiyalal 
Code), bar t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.