1/ was illegal and rendered the sale void.,
The suit was substantially decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the trial judge but on appeal the plaintiffs suit was dismissed in respect of the relief in regard to the three plots above named which were the subject of sale on September 21, 1938, and of the house which was sold on November 6, 1940.
2,000/ and Survey Nos.
142 and 211 of 1947.
The permission sought was granted by the Collector enabling the Mahalkari to bid at the auction.
The three items of lands were purchased by government at the sale for a numberinal bid of Re.
1,750/ .
As substantially the arrears due to government still remained undischarged, because the sales were for numberinal amounts, the house property at Kurhe was attached and brought to sale and was sold on November 6, 1940, but the purchase in the case of the house was number by the government but the property was bid for and purchased by the second defendant for Rs.
A certificate of sale was issued to him on February 13, 1941.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 20, 1950, of the Bombay High Court in first Appeals Nos.
Later the government sold the land bearing Survey No.
P. Varma, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
R. Khanna, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent No.
133 1 a of the Constitution.
The appeal was heard by us in November last and judgment was reserved on 9/11/1961.
The learned judges of the High Court, on the other hand, were of the opinion that the sales and the purchase by government for a numberinal sum of Re.
It is the companyrectness of this view of the High Court that is raised for companysideration in the appeal.
The sales were held, numberstranger bid at the sale and thereupon the Mahalkari acting under the resolution of Government and the terms of the permission granted by the Collector, made a numberinal bid of Re.
2 and 5.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Possession of these properties was delivered to the respective defendants in 1939.
35, 40 and 80 in Mauje Therole, Peta Edalabad and a house bearing Survey No, 23A in the village of Kurhe was brought to sale and sold.
The certificate under O. XVI r.13 was received by this Court and on its basis substitution was ordered at the end of August 1962.
1/ for each item for realisation of these dues.
The plaintiffs father was an excise companytractor and he and the plaintiff were licensees of certain opium shops in 1931 By the end of March 1934 a sum of about Rs.
For the realisation of these dues the lands belonging to the plaintiff were brought to sale and among others Survey Field No.
B. Agarwala and Naunit Lal, for the respondents Nos.
It was the validity of these sales that was challenged in the suit which has given rise to this appeal.
67 of 1956.
35 and 40 to the fifth defendant for Rs.
1/ and it was after this numberice that the purchase by Government on the above terms was effected.
8,500/ were due to the Government in respect of the excise dues from these opium shops.
The validity of the sale was attacked before us on several grounds 1 that under r. 128 the Collector was bound to have fixed an upset price and that his failure to do so rendered the sale void.,
Within a short time thereafter, learned Counsel for the Appellant intimated the Registry that the 2nd respondent had died on November 5, 1961, and that steps were being taken to have the legal representative brought on record.
Thereafter the Mahalkari intimated the defaulters the plaintiff and his father that if numberbidder came forward at the time of the public auction sale and numberody bid, the lands mentioned in the proclamation would be sold at a numberinal price of Re.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J. This appeal companyes before us on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Bombay under Art.
The sale was companyfirmed and possession taken by government of these lands.
September 26.
1/ for each of the plots were authorized by the Code and were therefore valid and binding on the plaintiff.
The appeal was subse quently reported for hearing and we have number heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
In view of the prayer for the declaration regarding the invalidity of the sale, the Province of Bombay was impleaded as a defendant to the suit.
The facts giving rise to the appeal are briefly as follows The plaintiff who is the appellant brought a suit in the Court of the Civil judge at Jalgaon for a declaration that the sale of certain of his lands which were held by the Revenue Authorities in circumstances which we shall detail later was void, and to recover possession of the lands from the defendants who had purchased these lands in revenue auction.
80 to the second defendant for Rs.
1/ for each lot on behalf of the Government and the bids were accepted and thereafter the sales were companyfirmed.
