Back
1931 Supreme(SC) 3
Privy Council At Patna
Lancelot Sanderson, Russell of Killownen, Justice Lords Atkin , JJ.
Mt. Saraswati Bahuria -Appellant
Versus
Surajnarayan Chaudhuri and others -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 35 of 1928 : Patna Appeal No. 11 of 1925
Decided On : 13-01-1931
A. Majid
Under the Bengal Revenue Sales Act, 1859, an estate cannot be sold for revenue arrears until the expiration of the latest date for payment fixed by the Board of Revenue. Revenue becoming an arrear on the 1st of a month requires the subsequent notification deadline to be met before sale.
Headnote:(A) Bengal Revenue Sales Act, 1859 - Sections 2 and 3 - Arrears of revenue - Determination of date of default - If a kist or instalment is unpaid on the first of the following month, the sum remaining unpaid shall be considered an arrear of revenue - Under the Act, the Board of Revenue determines the latest dates for payment of arrears, in default of which estates shall be sold at public auction - Where revenue was payable on 28th March and became an arrear on 1st April, the latest date for payment under the notification (7th June) must be observed - An estate is not liable to be sold for default of payment until the expiration of the last day for payment; consequently, a sale held prior to this date is invalid.
(B) Bengal Revenue Sales Act, 1859 - Section 7 - Notice to ryots - A notice forbidding tenants to pay rent to a defaulting proprietor, which identifies the period for which revenue is due, does not necessarily specify the last date for payment of the government revenue.
Facts of the case:
A pardanashin lady's share in an estate was sold by auction on 6th June 1919 due to alleged arrears of revenue. The revenue for the March instalment was payable on 28th March 1919. Under the applicable law, this sum became an arrear on 1st April 1919. A notification by the Board of Revenue specified 7th June as one of the latest dates for payment of arrears for estates of a certain value in districts where the fasli era prevails. The trial court found the sale invalid, but the High Court reversed this, holding that the last date for payment was 28th March and thus the sale on 6th June was valid.
Findings of Court:
The revenue due on 28th March 1919 did not become an arrear until 1st April 1919. Therefore, the last date for payment of such arrear under the Board of Revenue's notification was 7th June 1919. The sale held on 6th June 1919 occurred before the expiration of the last day for payment and was therefore invalid.
Issues: Whether the sale of the property on 6th June 1919 was valid given that the revenue became an arrear on 1st April 1919 and the latest date for payment was 7th June 1919.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 2 of the Bengal Revenue Sales Act, 1859, revenue unpaid on the first of the following month is considered an arrear. Under Section 3, the estate is not liable to be sold until the expiration of the last day for payment fixed by the Board of Revenue. Since the arrear existed from 1st April, the applicable deadline was 7th June; thus, a sale on 6th June was without jurisdiction.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
land revenue
-
recovery of arrears
- sale of estate
-
recovery of arrears
-
tort
- fraud
-
administrative law
- statutory interpretation
Sir Lancelot Sanderson—
This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the suit from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated 19th February 1925, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga dated 25th June 1921. The delay in the disposal of this appeal is accounted for by the fact that the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 4th November 1926, and it was not until 22nd March 1928, that by an order of His Majesty in Council the appeal was restored upon certain conditions therein specified. The appellant's case was lodged in April 1928; the respondents however did not file a case and were not represented at the hearing of this appeal.
The suit was brought by the plaintiff, a pardanashin lady, to set aside the sale of a certain share of Mauza Ladugaon, which took place on 6th June 1919, by reason of alleged arrears of revenue, for recovery of possession of the said share and for mesne profits.
It was alleged that the plaintiff's share in the said village was five annas ten gandas, and that defendants 2 and 3, Bedanand Thakur and Lachhmi Kant Thakur, together with other persons, were the owners of the other share in the said village. It was further alleged that the above-mentioned two defendants had purchased the plaintiff's share in the said village in the name of their relation, defendant 1, Surajnarayan Chaudhuri, at a grossly inadequate price, viz., Rs. 1,350, the real value of the plaintiff's share being at least Rs. 16,000. There were nine issues raised at the trial, but it is necessary to refer to two only for the purpose of disposing of this appeal.
(1) The plaintiff alleged that defendants 2 and 3 had acted fraudulently and in collusion with the plaintiff's patwari and had bribed him to allow the payment of revenue to become in arrear, so as to bring the plaintiff's share to sale. Both the Courts in India held that the plaintiff had failed to prove her case of fraud and collusion, and the learned counsel who appeared for the plaintiff at the hearing of this appeal did not contest the correctness of that finding.
(2) The other issue, to which reference is necessary, was numbered 4 in the trial Court and was as follows :
"Whether the sale was held in absence of arrears of Government revenue as alleged."
The Subordinate Judge found this issue in favour of the plaintiff and directed that the suit be decreed with costs, that the plaintiff should recover possession of the said share in the village on depositing the amount of consideration within one month and that the amount of means profits should be ascertained at a later stage. The defendant, Surajnarayan Chaudhuri, appealed against the above-mentioned decree to the High Court at Patna, making the plaintiff, and defendants 2 and 3 respondents. The learned Judges of the High Court held that there was an arrear of revenue in respect of which the share of the plaintiff was liable to be put up for sale, and that the sale of 6th June 1919, was valid. They therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs.
The plaintiff's case in respect of the above-mentioned issue was that her share in the property was sold on account of her alleged default in the payment of the Chait kist, or instalment, that the said kist was payable on 28th March 1919, that by reason of S. 2, Act of 1859, the said kist did not become an arrear of revenue until 1st April 1919, and that the latest date for the payment of such arrear of revenue fixed by the Government in pursuance of S. 3 of the said Act was 7th June 1919. Consequently it was contended that the Collector had no jurisdiction to put up the property for sale on 6th June 1919.
Their Lordships have examined the documents in this case, which include the Land Revenue and Road Cess and process tauzi ledger, and the Land Revenue tauzi roll relating to the estate in question. It appears that, there was a separate account in respect of the plain
