Case Details

Citation(s)
1952 SLG 3 1952 SLD 3 1952 PLD 440
Bangladesh High Court
Appeal from Original Decree No. 183 of 1942, decision dated: 3rd December, 1951 against the Decree of Pratul Chandra Roy. Subordinate Judge of Zilla Rajshahi; dated the 13-02-1942, in Title Suit No. 29 of 1940
AMIN AHMED AND GUHA, JJ
Upendra Kumar Roy and Nagendra Nath Talukdar for Appellants. Prokash Chandra Pakrashi and Sabita Ranjan Pal for
Respondent

KAMALA PRASAD SUKUL and another--Appellants

VS

SAROJNATH TALUKDAR--Respondent

Law: Government of India Act, 1935

Section:

Bengal Land Revenue Sale Law Act (XI of 1859), Ss, 5 (3), 33-Notice essential even if part of estate under attachment- Non-service of notice not enough to set aside sale unless substantial injury also proved. Advisedly the Legislature has mentioned, "No estate and no share or interest in any estate" in the first part of section 5 and "estates under attachment" in clause 3 of that section. Reading these together, this has been done in order to emphasise that in case of an attachment of an estate, wholly or partially-for the whole includes a part for the recovery of arrears of revenue neither the entire estate nor a portion of that estate shall be sold without a notice under section 5. Presumably, this is for the benefit of attaching creditor, co­sharer, prospective buyer, debtor or defaulter and other parties concerned. In view of the provisions of section 33 of Act XI of 1859, the sale cannot be set aside only on the ground of non-service of notice unless the party affected by it can satisfy the' Court that such an irregularity has caused substantial injury to that party. JUDGMENT AMIN AHMED, J.--- This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against a judgment and decree of Mr. Pratul Chandra Roy, Subordinate Judge, Rajshahi, dated the 13th February, 1942. It arises out of a suit for setting aside a revenue sale on the ground that the sale was held in contravention of the provisions of the Revenue Sale Law. Plaintiff No. 1 is the father of plaintiff' No. 2 and the plaintiff No. 2 is a minor son who was made a party, because according to the plaintiff their family was governed by the Mitakshara Law. The plaintiffs' case inter alia is that they owned 4 annas share of Touzi No. 266 of the Rajshahi Collectorate known as Digha Kismat 8 annas share, and in respect of their 4 annas share, a separate account No. 266/1 bearing a proportionate annual revenue of Rs. 1,246, was opened. On the 23rd June, 1939, this separate account No. 266/1 was put up for sale by the Collector of Rajshahi for arrears of revenue alleged to be due in respect of this separate account for part of the January Kisti and the whole of the March Kisti, 1939. On the date .of the sale the plaintiff No.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492