LexPARMANAND AND OTHERS versus GANPATRAO AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 J_v<Jlish Thakur v. Tarakant Jha Das Gupta, J. 1962 Sc/1tember 12. 28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. on the other hand it was established that the land was never the raiyati land of the appellant but was the pradhani jote of Maharaj Rai Ghatwal. It is unneces- sary for us to decide whether in the facts and circums- tances of that case the decision of the High Court was correct. We need only say that this case did not purport to decide that the entry Bakasht would always imply the negation of a raiyati right. It may be mentioned that the attention of the learned judges who decided this case was drawn to the High Court's decision in the case now under appeal before us and they distinguished it by saying that the earlier deci- sion should be held to be a finding restricted to its own facts and circumstances. Our conclusion therefore is that the High Court was right in holding that the sale of May 15, 1935 was void with respect to the raiyati interest and only the right to receive rent passed by this sale to the defendants first party. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. PARMANAND AND OTHERS v. GANPATRAO AND OTHERS (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. c. DAS GUPTA AND J. R. MuDHOLKAR, .JJ.) Revenue Sale---Validity of-C.P. Land Revenue Act, 1947 (C. P. 2 of 1917), s. 149. The appellants are Lambardars of Mahal No.2 of Mouza Gujarkhedi, and they held therein an undivided share of As. -/11/- and as they were found in arrears of land revenue to the extent of Rs. 730/13/-, the property was sold for Rs. 600/- but the sale proclamatiori. recited the amount of arrears due as Rs. 1345-9-0 and that the properties were Leing sold for • • ' • ' - 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS z9 recovering that amount. It was contended by the appellants, that it was open to them to have the sale set aside in the Civil Com t on the ground that the arrear for which the property was sold was not due. The trial court dismissed tho suit on the ground that the suit did not lie and the High Court affirmed the decision. Held, that s. 149 (2) of the Act was plain and unam- biguous and that if the arrear in respect of which the sale was held was not due it gave a right to the gwner of the property to have the sale set aside in a Civil Court. The fact that subse- 1uePt to the sale proclamation but on the date of the sale further amounts towards land revenue had become due was not material, the scheme of the Act being that in respect of each specific arrear separate proceedings had to be taken. Hd.d, further, that mistakes and irregularities contempla- ted by the Act which would not furnish grounds for invalidating and setting aside the sale were of a different kind and from the scheme of the Act it is clear that a sale for an arrear that was not due was put in a separate category. Rewa Mahten v. Ram Kishan Singh ( 1886) L.R. 13 I.A. 106 and Ram Prasad Chondhury v. Ram Jadu Lahiri, (1936) 40 C.W.N. 1054, diStinguishecl. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. llO of 1960. 'l\ppeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April 13, 1956, of the former Nagpur High Court in F.A. No. 99 of 1947. Naunit lal, for the appellants. B. A. 1Wasodkar, B. D. Najbile and Ganpat Rai, for the respondents. 1962. September 12. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1962 Parmanand v. Ganpatrao GAJENDRAGADKAR, ].-This appeal by special Gaj<nd,.gadka" J leave raises a short question about the construction of section 149 (2) of the C. P. Land Revenue Act, 1917 (No II of 1917) (hereinafter called the Act). The validity of a revenue sale of their properties held on Febmary 27, 1941 under section 128(f) of the Act was challenged by the appellants by their suit 1962 Parman and v. Ganpatrao GaJtndragadkar, J, 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]SUPP. filed in the Court of the Additional Judge, Nagpur OI! November 12, 1946. Ganpatrao Vishwanathji Deshmukh who had purchased the properties at the said auction sale was impleaded as defendant No. l to the said suit. During the pcndency of the litigation, the said Ganpatrao has died and his heirs have been brought on the record. They will be referred to as respondent No. 1 in the course of this judgment. The appellants challenged the impugned sale on five different grounds. They alleged that the sale was without jurisdiction; that as the final bid was not accepted by the Dy. Commissioner, it was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.