Law: Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913

Section: 37

Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act (III of 1913), S. 37, proviso-Fraud-Certificate sale alleged to have been fraudulent Suit, held, maintainable to challenge such certificate proceedings. Akmal Khan v. Amaresh Chandra Roy and others P L D 195 Dacca 299 ; Anu Mian and another v. Osi Miah and others 71 C L J 251 ; Lalit Mohan Sen v. Manoranjan Ghosh Chaudhuri and others 36 C L J 208 and Basanta Kumar Pal and another v. Harendra Nath Mukhopadlayya and others 30 C W N 36 rel. Dates of hearing : 29th and 30th October 1969   JUDGMENT Second Appeals Nos. 1088 and 1089 of 1961 have been heard together and this judgment will govern both the appeals. These two appeals are by the plaintiff who instituted to suits being Title Suits Nos. 79 and 80 of 1959, for setting aside the certificate sales held under K. D. 2166 of 1952-53 as well as K. D. 2165 of 1952-53 which were alleged to have been fraudulent, collusive and null and void. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff and pro-defendant No. 5, the father of the auction-purchasers-defendants Nos. 1 to 3, were co-sharers in 4.83 as well as 1.28 acres of land mentioned in the schedule of both the suits in moiety shares ; that the tenancy was diluviated and so the plaintiff and the pro-defendant No. 5 were to leave the disputed Mouza of Char Voira for Char Narayanpur and that the Government gave remission of rent due to diluvion and the lands were reformed in 1359 B.S. when the plaintiff grew grass and possessed the same. Thereafter the plaintiff learnt that the properties were sold in auction in the aforesaid certificate proceedings and also found that they were purchased by pro-defendant No. 5 in auction sale in the benami of his sons who are defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. Plaintiff filed applications under section 23 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 (Bengal Act I11 of 1913) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for setting aside the same and being unsuccessful there, has brought the above two suits. The further case of the plaintiff was that no notice under section 7 and rule 46 to Schedule 11 of the Act was served in any of the cases nor any sale proclamation was served in the locality. The…