Judgment

AHMADI, J.- The appellants before us are original defendant 2, since deceased through his legal representatives, and defendant 3 of Suit No. 160 of 1966 filed in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ferozepur. The facts leading to this appeal are that one Narain Singh was the Lambardar of Village Hazara Singh Wala in Tehsil and District Ferozepur. As he did not reside in the said village, he was unable to carry out his duties and functions as a Lambardar and hence one Hardit Singh worked as a substitute Lambardar for him. The said Hardit Singh was removed as such on November 8, 1957 and in his place Sardara Singh, son of Dharam Singh, the original plaintiff was appointed as a substitute Lambardar. Narain Singh had undertaken liability for the land revenue which was in arrears. Sardara Singhs case was that he did not actually act as a substitute Lambardar and did not collect any land revenue from the land owners but the Patwari of the village had obtained his thumb impressions on certain documents. According to him the Patwari had collected the land revenue from the land owners but had failed to deposit the same in the Government Treasury. By 1962-63 the arrears of land revenue had risen to Rs 40,000 or thereabouts. Sardara Singh was prosecuted under Section 409 IPC in respect of the said arrears on the premise that he had collected the said amount from the land owners but had failed to deposit the same in the State Treasury. He, however, came to be acquitted on February 22, 1965. Prior to that, in 1964, he had made representations to the authorities for settling the accounts and had asked the defaulters to show him the receipts of payments, if any, made by them. No action was taken on his representations but instead his land was attached and put to auction sale by the revenue authorities on January 18, 1965 for recovering Rs 11,718 as arrears of land revenue. The auction-purchasers paid 25 per cent of the price offered on the very same day. The remaining 75 per cent which was required to be paid within 15 days was however deposited on March 2, 1965 instead of February 2, 1965. The sale was confirmed on February 21, 1966 and the sale certificate was issued on March 12, 1966. Thereupon the suit in question was filed in August 1966 to restrain the State of Punjab and the auction-purchasers from taking possession of the land admeasuring about 178 kanals and 2 marlas. The case set up by the plaintiff was that he was not a substitute Lambardar; that he had not collected the land revenue from the land owners; that he was not a defaulter within the meaning of Section 3(8) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter called the Act); that the auction sale was not conducted in accordance with law and abounded in several illegalities; that even otherwise the sale was void and the issuance of sale certificate was of no consequence whatsoever and that no title in the auctioned land passed to the purchasers thereunder.

2. The suit was contested mainly on the ground that the plaintiff was a defaulter within the meaning of Section 3(8) of the Act; that the sale was conducted in accordance with law and the auction-purchasers had, on the issuance of the sale certificate, become owners of the auctioned land; that in view of Section 158 of the Act the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed.

3. The trial Judge raised as many as seven issues and on the basis of the findings recorded he dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff was duly appointed as a substitute Lambardar whose duty it was to collect the land revenue and deposit the same in the State Treasury; he having failed to do so was a defaulter under Section 3(8) of the Act and the State Government was entitled to attach and sell his land to recover the arrears of land revenue due from him. He also came to the conclusion that in the circumstances the sale was perfectly legal and valid and the civil