(Kumar) Ramyad Singh vs Chhedia Barhi and Others

W.S. Coutts, J.—Those appeals arise out of suits brought to set aside sales in execution of decrees on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The case is a somewhat curious one. Kumar Ramvad Singh, the plaintiff, brought suits against three persons Jhamna Dusadhh, Chhedia Barhi and Lochan Koeri for arrears of rent. The suits were under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code; decreed and on applying for execution the defendants holdings were put up for sale in the ordinary course. On be date fixed for the sales the plaintiff applied for permission to bid and permission was granted by the Deputy Collector with the reservation that the plaintiff should not be allowed to bid for the defendants'' ghars and Gharbaris. The plaintiff alleges that he had no knowledge of this reservation; he bid for and purchased the holdings, the sales were confirmed and it was not until after the confirmation of the sales that the plaintiff discovered that the ghars and gharbaris had been exempted. His contention is that in exempting these portions of the holdings the Deputy Collector acted without jurisdiction and he has consequently brought these suits to set aside the sales.

The suits were dismissed in the Court of first instance and the decisions having been upheld on appeal the plaintiff has again appealed to this Court. The defendants at the time of the trial alleged that the ghars and gharbaris were no portions of the holding; this, however, was found against them by the Court of first instance, and apparently on appeal the question was not raised so that we must now take that the ghars and gharbaris are parts of the holdings. The only questions, therefore, which remain are whether the Deputy Collector had jurisdiction to exempt these portions of the holdings and whether for this reason the sales were without jurisdiction. The whole holdings were put up for sale and I can find nothing in the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act which, would authorise the Deputy Collector to exempt any portion of a holding or to forbid an intending purchaser to bid for a portion of it. In these circumstances it seems to me that the order of the Deputy Collector exempting these portions of the holdings from sale was without jurisdiction and if this is so, clearly the sales themselves which purport to exclude these portions of the holdings which were put up for sale are also clearly without jurisdiction. Both the Courts below have referred to the fact that the plaintiffs might have made an application u/s 213 to set aside the sales and they seem to think that because the plaintiff did not do this he is not entitled to succeed in these suits. I am unable to understand this view. It is true that the plaintiff could have made an application u/s 213 but the fact that he did not do so certainly cannot bar the suits. In my view the sales were without jurisdiction and should be set aside. I would accordingly decree these appeals.

Das, J.

I agree.