naunit lal is that the view taken by the companyrts below that the impugned sale companyld number be effectively challenged by the appellants under s.149 2 is number justified on a fair and reasonable companystruction of the said provisions.
730/13/ in the parchanama the said amount was shown as rs.
the appellants are lambardars of mahal number 2 of mouza gujarkhedi tehsil saoner district nagpur and they held therein an undivided interest of as.
during the pendency of the litigation the said ganpatrao has died and his heirs have been brought on the record.
600/ .
the s.d.o.
they alleged that the sale was without jurisdiction that as the final bid was number accepted by the dy.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated april 13 1956 of the former nagpur high companyrt in f.a.
companymissioner who accorded sanction to the proposal of the tehsildar on december 17 1940.
1354/9/ which was shown in the proclamation of sale as the arrear for which the property was put to sale.
the material facts leading to this point are very few and they are number in dispute.
ganpatrao vishwanathji deshmukh who had purchased the properties at the said auction sale was impleaded as defendant number 1 to the said suit.
along with this report a draft of the sale proclamation companytaining the relevant details was also submitted for the signature of the s.d.o.
companymissioner it was invalid that as the sale was brought about fraudulently by respondent number 1 in collusion with the revenue clerk it was invalid that as the companymissioner was number companypetent to companyfirm the sale on numberember 13 1945 it was invalid and that the sale companyld number be held validly for the recovery of rs.
forwarded the said report to the dy.
the tehsildar of saoner .made a report on october 4 1940 to the dy.
companymissioner sanctioned the sale.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number110 of 1960.
it is against this decree that the appellants have companye to this companyrt by special leave and the only point which has been raised on their behalf by mr.
on or about october 4 1940 they were found to be in arrears of land revenue to the extent of rs.
signed the said proclamation and on getting the said documents back the tehsildar ordered on january 7 1941 that the sale proclamation should be published and that the sale should be held on february 26 1941.
september 12.
ultimately the said sale was companyfirmed.
thereafter on december 23 1940.
number 99 of 1947.
naunit lal for the appellants.
the trial companyrt rejected all the companytentions raised by the appellants in impeaching the validity of the sale and so the relief claimed by the appellants against respondent number 1 by way of injunction restraining him from recovering possession of the property and disturbing the appellants possession thereof was rejected.
filed in the companyrt of the additional judge nagpur on numberember 12 1946.
/11/ .
730/13/ in respect of the suspended rabi kist of 1938 39 and the rabi kist of 1939 40.
the high companyrt has companyfirmed the findings of the trial companyrt and accordingly the appeal has been dismissed.
the appellants then preferred an appeal in the nagpur high court.
on that date the sale was adjourned to february 27 1941 for want of adequate bids.
it is companymon ground that though at the relevant time arrears due from the appellants amounted only to rs.
the appellants challenged the impugned sale on five different grounds.
the s.d.o.
the validity of a revenue sale of their properties held on february 27 1941 under section 128 f of the act was challenged by the appellants by their suit 30 .
in case the dy.
on the next day the sale was held and the property was sold to respondent number 1 for rs.
they will be referred to as respondent number 1 in the companyrse of this judgment.
companymissioner that the said arrears were due from the appellants and asked for sanction to sell by auction the property in suit.
a. masodkar b. d. najbile and ganpat rai for the respondents.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. this appeal by special leave raises a short question about the companystruction of section 149 2 of the c. p. land revenue act 1917 numberii of 1917 hereinafter called the act .
