{"id":200702,"date":"1962-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962"},"modified":"2016-02-10T19:43:54","modified_gmt":"2016-02-10T14:13:54","slug":"parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962","title":{"rendered":"Parmanand And Others vs Ganpatrao And Others on 12 September, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Parmanand And Others vs Ganpatrao And Others on 12 September, 1962<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPARMANAND AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGANPATRAO AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n12\/09\/1962\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\nRevenue Sale--Validity of--C.P. Land Revenue Act, 1947 (C.P.\n2 of 1917), s. 149.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellants\t are  Lambardars  of  Mahal  No.2  of  Mouza\nGujarkhedi, and they held therein an undivided share of\t As.\n-\/II \/- and as they were found in arrears of land revenue to\nthe  extent of Rs. 730\/13\/-, the property was sold  for\t Rs.\n600\/-but the sale proclamation recited the amount of arrears\ndue as Rs. 1345-9-0 and that the properties were being\tsold\nfor\n 29\nrecovering that amount.\t It was contended by the appellants,\nthat  it was open to them to have the sale set aside in\t the\nCivil  Court  on the ground that the arrear  for  which\t the\nproperty  was sold was not due.\t The trial  court  dismissed\nthe  suit  on the ground that the suit did not lie  and\t the\nHigh Court affirmed the decision.\nHeld,  that s. 149 (2) of the Act was plain and\t unambiguous\nand that if the arrear in respect of which the sale was held\nwas not due it gave a right to the owner of the property  to\nhave  the  sale set aside in a Civil Court.  The  fact\tthat\nsubsequent  to the sale proclamation but on the date of\t the\nsale further amounts towards land revenue had become due was\nnot material, the scheme of the Act being that in respect of\neach specific arrear separate proceedings had to be taken.\nHeld, further, that mistakes and irregularities contemplated\nby the Act which would not furnish grounds for\tinvalidating\nand setting aside the sale were of a different kind and from\nthe scheme of the Act it is clear that a sale for an  arrear\nthat was not due was put in a separate category.\nRewa Mahten v. Ram Kishan Singh (1886) L.R. 13 I.A. 106\t and\nRam  Prosad Choudhury v. Ram Jadu Lahiri, (1936)  40  C.W.N.\n1054, distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No, 110 of 1960.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated
\nApril 13, 1956, of the former Nagpur High Court in F.A.\t No.
\n99 of 1947.\n<\/p>\n
Naunit lal, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
B.  A.\tMasodkar,  B. D. Najbile and  Ganpat  Rai,  for\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
1962.\tSeptember  12.\t The  judgment\tof  the\t Court\t was
\ndelivered by
\nGAJENDRAGADKAR,\t J.-This  appeal by special leave  raises  a
\nshort question about the construction of section 149 (2)  of
\nthe   C.  P.-Land  Revenue  Act,  1917\t(No  II\t  of   1917)
\n(hereinafter  called  the Act).\t The validity of  a  revenue
\nsale  of  their properties held on February 27,\t 1941  under
\nsection\t 128(f) of the Act was challenged by the  appellants
\nby their suit
\n30 .\n<\/p>\n
filed  in  the\tCourt of the  Additional  judge,  Nagpur  on
\nNovember 12, 1946.  Ganpatrao Vishwanathji Deshmukh who\t had
\npurchased  the\tproperties  at the  said  auction  sale\t was
\nimpleaded  as defendant No. 1 to the said suit.\t During\t the
\npendency of the litigation, the said Ganpatrao has died\t and
\nhis  heirs  have been brought on the record.  They  will  be
\nreferred  to  as  respondent No. 1 in  the  course  of\tthis
\njudgment.   The appellants challenged the impugned  sale  on
\nfive  different\t grounds.  They alleged that  the  sale\t was
\nwithout jurisdiction; that as the final bid was not accepted
\nby  the Dy.  Commissioner, it was invalid; that as the\tsale
\nwas  brought  about  fraudulently by  respondent  No.  1  in
\ncollusion  with the Revenue Clerk, it was invalid;  that  as
\nthe  Commissioner was not competent to confirm the  sale  on
\nNovember  13 1945, it was invalid; and that the\t sale  could
\nnot be held validly for the recovery of Rs. 1,354\/9\/-  which
\nwas  shown  in the proclamation of sale as  the\t arrear\t for
\nwhich  the  property  was  put to  sale.   The\ttrial  court
\nrejected  all  the contentions raised by the  appellants  in
\nimpeaching  the\t validity  of the sale and  so,\t the  relief
\nclaimed by the appellants against respondent No. 1 by way of
\ninjunction restraining him from recovering possession of the
\nproperty  and disturbing the appellants’ possession  thereof
\nwas rejected.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellants then preferred an appeal in the Nagpur\tHigh
\nCourt.\t The  High Court has confirmed the findings  of\t the
\ntrial court and accordingly, the appeal has been  dismissed.
\nIt  is against this decree that the appellants have come  to
\nthis  Court by special leave; and the only point  which\t has
\nbeen  raised on their behalf by Mr. Naunit Lal is  that\t the
\nview taken by  the courts below that the impugned sale could
\nnot be effectively challenged by the appellants under  s.149
\n(2)  is not justified on a fair and reasonable\tconstruction
\nof the said provisions.\n<\/p>\n
The  material facts leading to this point are very few,\t and
\nthey  are not in dispute.  The appellants are Lambardars  of
\nMahal No. 2 of Mouza Gujarkhedi,
\n31<\/span>
\nTehsil\tSaoner,\t District Nagpur, and they held\t therein  an
\nundivided  interest  of As. \/11\/- . On or about\t October  4,
\n1940,  they were found to be in arrears of land\t revenue  to
\nthe  extent of Rs. 730\/13\/-in respect of the suspended\tRabi
\nkist of 1938-39 and the Rabi kist of 1939-40.  The Tehsildar
\nof  Saoner  .made  a report on October 4, 1940\tto  the\t Dy.
\nCommissioner  that  the\t said  arrears\twere  due  from\t the
\nappellants  and\t asked for sanction to sell by\tauction\t the
\nproperty  in suit.  ‘Along with this report, a draft of\t the
\nsale  proclamation containing the relevant details was\talso
\nsubmitted  for the signature of the S.D.O. in case  the\t Dy.
\nCommissioner sanctioned the sale.  The S.D.O. forwarded\t the
\nsaid report to the Dy. Commissioner who accorded sanction to
\nthe  proposal  of  the\tTehsildar  on  December\t 17,   1940.
\nThereafter, on December 23, 1940. the S.D.O. signed the said
\nproclamation  and  on getting the said documents  back,\t the
\nTehsildar   ordered  on\t January  7,  1941  that  the\tsale
\nproclamation should be published and that the sale should be
\nheld  on  February  26, 1941.  On that date,  the  sale\t was
\nadjourned  to February 27, 1941 for want of  adequate  bids.
\nOn the next day the sale was held and the property was\tsold
\nto  respondent\tNo. 1 for Rs. 600\/-.  Ultimately,  the\tsaid
\nsale was confirmed.  It is common ground that though at\t the
\nrelevant time, arrears due from the appellants amounted only
\nto Rs. 730\/13\/-, in the Parchanama the said amount was shown
\nas  Rs.\t 1,354\/9\/-  and the property in\t fact  was  sold  to
\nrecover\t the said amount of arrears under s. 128(f)  of\t the
\nAct.   The  appellants’ contention is that the\tarrear,\t Rs.
\n1,354\/9\/-,  for\t which his property has been sold  under  s.
\n128(f)\twas not due; what was due was the lesser amount\t of,
\nRs.  730\/13\/- and so, the sale in question is invalid  under
\ns. 149 (2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
In dealing with this point, it is necessary to refer to\t the
\nrelevant provisions of the Act.\t Chapter X of the Act  deals
\nwith  the  collection of land revenue, and  it\tconsists  of
\nsections 122 to 160.  Section 124
\n32<\/span>
\nconfers power on the State Government to regulate payment of
\nsums  payable under the Act and provides for the number\t and
\namount of the instalments, and the time, place and manner of
\npayment\t of  any  sum payable under  a\tsettlement  or\tsub-
\nsettlement, or otherwise under an assessment made under this
\nAct.   Sub-section  (2) of s. 124 requires that\t unless\t the
\nState Government otherwise directs, all such payments  shall
\nbe made as prescribed under sub-s. (1).\t A notice of  demand
\ncan  be issued by Tehsildar or Naib Tehsildar under  s.\t 127
\nand  it may be served on any defaulter before the  issue  of
\nany  process  under s. 128 for the recovery  of\t an  arrear.
\nSection\t 128  provides for the process for  recovery  of  an
\narrear\t and  it  prescribes  that  an\tarrear\tpayable\t  to
\nGovernment  may be recovered, inter alia,…(f)\t by  selling
\nsuch estate, mahal or land, or the share or land of any\t co-
\nsharer\twho  has not paid the portion of  the  land  revenue
\nwhich,\tas between him and the other co-sharers, is  payable
\nby him.\t Section 131 prescribes the procedure for attachment
\nand sale of movables and attachment of immovable  property..
\nThen  s.  132 provides for holding enquiry  into  claims  of
\nthird  persons in respect of property attached or  proceeded
\nagainst.  Section 138 (1) provides that the purchaser of any
\nestate,\t mahal,\t share\tor land sold  for  arrears  of\tland
\nrevenue due in respect thereof shall acquire it free of\t all
\nencumbrances  imposed on it, and all grants  and  contracts.
\nmade  in  respect  of  it, by  any  person  other  than\t the
\npurchaser.   Sub-sections  (2),\t (3)  and  (4)\tmake   other
\nprovisions, but it is unnecessary to refer to them.  Section
\n143  lays  down that if the arrear in respect of  which\t the
\nproperty is to be sold is paid at any time before the lot is
\nknocked\t down,\tthe  sale  shall  be  stayed.\tSection\t 145
\nprovides  for  application to set aside sale on\t deposit  of
\narrear,\t and  s. 146 provides for application to  set  aside
\nsale for irregularity.\tUnder s. 148 it is provided that  on
\nthe  expiry  of\t 30  days  from\t the  date  of\tsale  if  no
\napplication  has  been made under section 145 or 146  or  no
\nclaim has been made under s. 151, or if
\n 33<\/span>
\nsuch  application or claim has been made. and rejected,\t the
\nDy.   Commissioner shall pass an order confirming the  sale.
\nSection 151 refers to claims of pre-emptions.
\nThat takes us to section 149. Section reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1)  if no application under section  146  is
\n\t      made  within  the time allowed  therefor,\t all
\n\t      claims  on  the  grounds\tof  irregularity  or
\n\t      mistake shall be barred.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   Nothing in sub-section (1) shall bar the
\n\t      institution  of a suit in the Civil  Court  to
\n\t      set aside a sale on the ground of fraud or  on
\n\t      the  ground  that\t the arrear  for  which\t the
\n\t      property is sold is not due.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  would  thus\t be seen that the  scheme  of  the  relevant
\nprovisions  of the Act in relation to revenue sales  appears
\nto  be self-contained.\tThe revenue process  for  recovering
\narrears\t begins with the report as to the arrears  and\tends
\nwith  the confirmation of sale.\t Provision is made  for\t the
\nexamination  of\t claims\t of third parties  as  well  as\t for
\nsetting\t aside sales on account of deposit or on account  of
\nirregularities committed in conducting the sales., It is  in
\nthe  light  of this self-contained scheme that\ts.  149\t (1)
\nprovides that if no application under s. 146 is made  within
\nthe   time  prescribed,\t all  claims  on  the\tgrounds\t  of
\nirregularity or mistake shall be barred.  In other.  words’.
\nthe effect of this provision is that if a party aggrieved by
\na  revenue  sale  of his property  wants  to  challenge\t the
\nvalidity  of  the said sale on grounds\tof  irregularity  or
\nmistake, the Act has provided a remedy for him by s.146\t and
\nit he fails to avail himself of that remedy, it\t  would\t not
\nbe  open to him to challenge the impugned sale on  the\tsaid
\ngrounds by a separate suit.  The grounds of irregularity  or
\nmistake\t must be urged by an application made under  s.\t 146
\nand  if\t no  such application is made,\tthen  the  party  is
\nprecluded from taking the said grounds otherwise.  Thus\t far
\nthere is no difficulty or dispute.\n<\/p>\n
34<\/span><\/p>\n
Sub-section (2) of s. 149 provides an exception to ss.\t(1),
\nand  it\t says that the institution of a suit  would  not  be
\nbarred in a Civil Court to set aside ‘a sale on two grounds;
\nif  the\t sale is challenged on the ground of fraud,  a\tsuit
\nwill  lie; similarly, if a sale is challenged on the  ground
\nthat the arrear for which the property is sold is not due, a
\nsuit  will  lie.  The effect of this provision\tis  that  if
\nfraud is proved in regard to a revenue sale, a suit will lie
\nand  the sale will be set aside; similarly, if it  is  shown
\nthat the arrear for which the property is sold was not\tdue,
\na suit will lie and the sale will be set aside.\t There is no
\ndifficulty or dispute about this position also.
\nThe question on which the parties are at issue before us  is
\nin  regard to the interpretation of the clause\t“the  arrear
\nfor  which  the property is sold.” It has been held  by\t the
\nHigh  Court that what this clause requires is not  that\t the
\narrear for which the property is sold should be stated\twith
\nmeticulous  accuracy,  if a mistake is made in\tshowing\t the
\nactual amount of arrear due from the defaulter for which the
\nproperty  is  sold, that mistake would not render  the\tsale
\ninvalid; it would be a mistake within the meaning of  ss.(1)
\nand  so,  to  cases of that kind sub-section  (2)  will\t not
\napply.\tOn the other hand, Mr. Naunit Lal contends that\t the
\nclause “the arrear for which the property is sold” is  plain
\nand unambiguous.  In considering the question as to  whether
\nthis  clause  is attracted or not, one has to  look  at\t the
\nproclamation of sale and enquire whether the amount shown as
\narrears\t due from the defaulter was in fact due or not.\t  If
\nthe  said  amount  was\tnot  due,  the\tclause\twill   apply
\nnotwithstanding the fact that a lesser amount may have\tbeen
\ndue from the said defaulter.\n<\/p>\n
In construing s. 149(2) it is relevant to remember that\t the
\nprovision  in question is made in relation to revenue  sales
\nand there is no doubt that the revenue sales are  authorised
\nto  be\theld under the summary procedure prescribed  by\t the
\nrelevant sections of the
\n35<\/span>
\nAct, and so, it would not be unreasonable to construe  these
\nprovisions  strictly.\tThat is why we are not\tinclined  to
\naccept the view that in interpreting the relevant clause, we
\nshould\tassume\tthat  the Legislature  did  not\t expect\t the
\nauthorities to specify the arrear for which the property  is
\nsold  with meticulous care.  If the defaulter’s property  is
\nbeing sold under revenue sale and the object of issuing\t the
\nproclamation is to show for what arrear it is being sold, it
\nis,  we think, fair to assume that the said arrear  must  be
\nstated\twith absolute accuracy.\t It would not be  enough  to
\nsay  that  some arrear was due and so, the  sale  should  be
\nupheld though it was purported to be held for recovery of  a
\nmuch larger arrear.\n<\/p>\n
Nor is this consideration purely academic.  As we have seen,
\ns.  143 provides that if the arrear in respect of which\t the
\nproperty  is  to be sold is paid before the lot\t is  knocked
\ndown, the sale shall be stayed.\t In the present case, if the
\narrear\thad  been  properly shown at  Rs.  730113\/-,  it  is
\ntheoretically possible that the appellants may have been  in
\na position to deposit this amount before the lot was knocked
\ndown and the sale would have been stayed.  Since the  arrear
\nwas  shown to be much larger, it is  theoretically  possible
\nthat  the appellants could not make a successful attempt  to
\ndeposit the said amount.  Now, in working out the provisions
\nof s. 143, there should be no difficulty in determining\t the
\namount\twhich  the  defaulter has to deposit  to  avoid\t the
\nrevenue\t sale.\t The arrear in question\t must  be  correctly
\nstated in the proclamation so that everybody concerned knows
\nthe  exact amount for which the revenue sale is held.\tThat
\nis another consideration which supports the construction for
\nwhich the appellants contend.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.   Masodkar\tfor  respondent\t No.  1\t argued\t  that\t the
\nconstruction for which the appellants contend is  mechanical
\nand it may lead to anomalies.  In support of this  argument,
\nhe  took  the  illustration of a case where  the  amount  of
\narrears\t is accurately shown in the proclamation, but  after
\nthe proclamation is
\n36<\/span>
\nissued,\t a part of it is paid by the defaulter;-(as in\tfact
\nRs.  291\/- were deposited by the appellants in\tthe  present
\ncase) the contention is that in such a case, if the original
\namount\t ,of   arrears\tcontinues  to  be   shown   in\t the
\nproclamation, the sale would be invalid on the\tconstruction
\nsuggested  by the appellants.  We are not impressed by\tthis
\nargument.  Our attention has not been drawn to any  specific
\nprovision  of the Act under which a partial payment  of\t the
\narrear due is allowed +lo be made by the defaulter.  If such
\na  payment is made, it may, at best be treated as  deposited
\non  account, and no deduction would be made from the  arrear
\nnotified  to  be due from him in the  proclamation  at\tthat
\nstage.\tThe only provision which has been cited before us in
\nthat behalf is s. 143 and s. 143 expressly provides for\t the
\npayment of the whole of the arrear due and lays down that on
\nsuch payment before the lot is knocked down, the sale  shall
\nbe  stayed.   Therefore,  the  complication  sought  to\t  be
\nintroduced by Mr. Masodkar by taking a hypothetical case  of
\na  part payment of the arrears due from the defaulter,\tdoes
\nnot affect the construction of s. 149(2).\n<\/p>\n
It  is then argued that the impugned sale cannot be said  to
\nbe  irregular in the present case, because on the date\twhen
\nit  was, actually held, the amount of Rs. 1,354 \/9\/- was  in
\nfact  due  from\t the appellants as arrears.   It  is  common
\nground\tthat  after the proclamation was issued,  a  further
\namount of arrears became due from the appellants and on\t the
\ndate of the sale, the total amount came to be Rs. 1,354\/9\/-.
\nIn  our\t opinion, arrears accumulating. after an  order\t for
\nsale has been passed and the proclamation in that behalf has
\nbeen   issued,\tcannot\tcome  into  the\t calculation   while
\nconstruing  s.149 (2).\tEvery arrear for which the  sale  is
\nordered\t must be specifically dealt with as provided by\t the
\nAct.   It  is  not open to the authorities to  deal  with  a
\nspecific  arrear  as prescribed by the Act and\tto  pass  an
\norder for sale of the defaulter’s property on the
\n37<\/span>
\nbasis  of  that\t arrear\t and then  add\tto  it\tsubsequently
\naccruing arrears without following the procedure  prescribed
\nin that behalf.\t Once the amount of arrear is determined and
\nsale is ordered by reference to it, it is that amount  which
\nmust be shown in the proclamation and it is for that  amount
\nof arrear for which the property must be sold.\tThat, in our
\nopinion, is clearly the effect of the relevant clause in  s.
\n149  (2).  We must, therefore, hold that the High Court\t was
\nin  error in coming to the conclusion that the sale  of\t the
\nappellants’  property on the 27th February, 1941 was  valid.
\nWe  are satisfied that the arrear for which the\t appellants’
\nproperty  was sold was not due within the meaning  of  s.149
\n(2), and so, the sale must be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
In support of his argument that the impugned sale cannot  be
\nheld to be invalid, Mr. Masodkar relied on a decision of the
\nPrivy  Council\tin Rewa Mahton v. Ram Kishen  Singh(1).\t  In
\nthat  case,  the Privy Council was dealing with\t a  question
\nwhich  had reference to the true construction of s.  246  of
\nthe Civil Procedure Code of 1877 (Act X of 1877).  The\tsaid
\nsection had provided that if cross decrees between the\tsame
\nparties\t and  for the payment of money be  produced  in\t the
\nCourt,\texecution shall be taken out only by the  party\t who
\nholds the decree for the larger sum, and for so much only as
\nremains\t after deducting the smaller sum.  It  appears\tthat
\ncontrary to the provisions of this section, an auction\tsale
\nwas  held  and when the title of the  auction-purchaser\t was
\nchallenged, it became necessary to consider that the  effect
\nof  noncompliance with the provisions of s. 246 would be  on
\nthe title of the auction-purchaser.  The Privy Council\theld
\nthat  a purchaser under a sale in execution is not bound  to
\ninquire whether the judgment debtor had a cross judgment  of
\na  higher amount such as would have rendered the  order\t for
\nexecution  incorrect.  If the Court has\t jurisdiction,\tsuch
\npurchaser  is no more bound to inquire into the\t correctness
\nof an
\n(1)  (1886) L. R. 13 I. A. 106.\n<\/p>\n
38<\/span><\/p>\n
order for execution than he is as to the correctness of\t the
\njudgment  upon which execution issues.\tIn other words,\t the
\neffect\tof this decision is that if in contravention of\t the
\nprovisions of s. 246 an executing Court orders a sale to  be
\nheld,\t the   auction-purchaser   gets\t  a    good    title
\nnotwithstanding\t non-compliance with s. 246.  We do not\t see
\nhow this case can assist Mr. Masodkar in the present appeal.
\nThe  decision turned upon the construction of s.  246.\t But
\nthe  present dispute has to be decided on a construction  of
\ns. 149 (2).  It is wellknown that execution sales held under
\nthe  Code of Civil Procedure can be challenged only  in\t the
\nmanner\tprescribed and for the reasons specified,  say,\t for
\ninstance, by O. XXI r. 89, 90 and 91.  The fact that certain
\nirregularities\tcommitted  during the conduct  of  execution
\nsales  would  not render the sales invalid, flows  from\t the
\nrelevant  provisions  of the Code and so, it  would  not  be
\nreasonable to invoke the assistance of the decisions dealing
\nwith irregularities committed in execution sales in  support
\nof  the argument that a revenue sale held under s.  128\t (f)
\nshould be judged by the same principles.  The question as to
\nwhether\t the revenue sale is valid or not must obviously  be
\ndetermined  in the light of the relevant provisions  of\t the
\nAct  and that again takes us to the construction of  s.\t 149
\n(2).\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Masodkar had also relied on the decision of the Calcutta
\nHigh Court in Ram Prosad Choudhury v. Ram Jadu Lahiri  (1)in
\nsupport\t of his argument that a revenue sale held  under  s.
\n128  (f)  of the Act would not be  rendered  invalid  merely
\nbecause\t the amount of arrears shown in the proclamation  is
\nnot accurate.  In the case of Ram Prosad Choudhury, the sale
\nhad  been  held\t under the provisions  of  the\tBengal\tLand
\nRevenue Sales Act (Act XI of 1859).  Under s. 5 of the\tsaid
\nAct, notice had to be issued before the sale could be  held.
\nIn the notice. issued prior to the sale had been shown a sum
\nwhich had then not become due as an arrear along with  other
\nsums
\n(1)  (1936) 40 C.W.N. 1054.\n<\/p>\n
39<\/span><\/p>\n
which  had become arrears, and the subsequent sale was\theld
\non  the\t footing of the total amount thus  shown  being\t the
\narrears due.  It was urged that the sale was invalid because
\nof  the\t irregularity committed in the issue of\t the  notice
\nunder s. 5. This argument was rejected and it was held\tthat
\ndespite the said irregularity, the sale was valid.  Now,  in
\nappreciating the effect of this decision’ it is necessary to
\nrefer to the provisions of s. 33 of the said Act under which
\nthe  sale was challenged.  We have already referred  to\t the
\nfact  that s. 5 required a notice to be issued prior to\t the
\nsale.\tThe  notice  provided for by  this  section  had  to
\nspecify\t the nature and amount of arrear or demand, and\t the
\nlatest\tdate  on which payment thereof\tshall  be  received.
\nSection\t 33  provides that no sale for\tarrears\t of  revenue
\nshall be annulled, except upon the ground of its having been
\nmade  contrary to the provisions of this Act, and then\tonly
\non proof that the plaintiff has sustained substantial injury
\nby reason of the irregularity complained of’; with the\trest
\nof the section we are not concerned.  The argument which was
\nurged  in  the\tcase of Ram Prosad Choudhury  was  that\t the
\nnotice\tunder s. 5 having been irregularly issued, the\tsale
\nshould\tbe  deemed  to\thave  been  held  contrary  to\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe  said Act, and  this  argument  was\t not
\naccepted.  It would be noticed that s. 33 justifies a  claim
\nfor annulling the sale only if two conditions are satisfied;
\nthat  the  sale\t should\t have  been  made  contrary  to\t the
\nprovisions of the Act and that the plaintiff must show\tthat
\nhe  has\t sustained  substantial\t injury\t by  reason  of\t the
\nirregularity  complained of.  It is in the context of  these
\nrequirements  that  the Calcutta High Court  held  that\t the
\ninclusion of an amount in the notice which had not become an
\narrear on the date of the notice did not render the impugned
\nsale invalid.  We do not think that this decision can assist
\nus  in interpreting s. 149 (2) with which we are  concerned.
\nThe scope and effect of the relevant provisions of s. 149(2)
\nare not at all similar to the scope and effect of
\n40<\/span>
\ns.33  of the Bengal Act.  Therefore, we are not inclined  to
\naccept Mr. Masodkar’s argument that the defect in the\tsale
\non  which  the\tappellants rely would not  render  the\tsale
\ninvalid.\n<\/p>\n
The  result is, the appeal is allowed, the decree passed  by
\nthe  High  Court  is  set aside\t and  the  appellants’\tsuit
\ndecreed, There would be no order as to cost throughout.
\nAppeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Parmanand And Others vs Ganpatrao And Others on 12 September, 1962 PETITIONER: PARMANAND AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: GANPATRAO AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/09\/1962 BENCH: ACT: Revenue Sale–Validity of–C.P. Land Revenue Act, 1947 (C.P. 2 of 1917), s. 149. HEADNOTE: The appellants are Lambardars of Mahal No.2 of Mouza Gujarkhedi, and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200702","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nParmanand And Others vs Ganpatrao And Others on 12 September, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parmanand And Others vs Ganpatrao And Others on 12 September, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-10T14:13:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parmanand And Others vs Ganpatrao And Others on 12 September, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-10T14:13:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962\"},\"wordCount\":3762,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962\",\"name\":\"Parmanand And Others vs Ganpatrao And Others on 12 September, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-10T14:13:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parmanand And Others vs Ganpatrao And Others on 12 September, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Parmanand And Others vs Ganpatrao And Others on 12 September, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parmanand And Others vs Ganpatrao And Others on 12 September, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-10T14:13:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parmanand And Others vs Ganpatrao And Others on 12 September, 1962","datePublished":"1962-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-10T14:13:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962"},"wordCount":3762,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962","name":"Parmanand And Others vs Ganpatrao And Others on 12 September, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-10T14:13:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-and-others-vs-ganpatrao-and-others-on-12-september-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parmanand And Others vs Ganpatrao And Others on 12 September, 1962"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200702","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=200702"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200702\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200702"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200702"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200702"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}