A co-owner may purchase property at a revenue sale without notifying other co-owners. Relief against a third-party purchaser requires proof of the purchaser's notice of fraud. Additionally, challenges to a sale's jurisdiction in appeal are barred unless cross-objections are filed under Order 41, Rule 22 of the CPC.

Sir George Rankin:-

In the books of the Collectorate of the 24-Parganas touzi No. 151 was an estate bearing a land revenue of Rs.39,786 and divided into two blocks. The larger block or Burra Hudda consisted of 104 villages scattered throughout the district and to it was allocated over Rupees 37,000 of the annual revenue. The smaller block or Chota Hudda consisted of seven villages: about Rs. 2000 of the revenue was allocated to it, and its lands lay on the outskirts of Calcutta. In each block the zamindary right was vested in a number of persons and in each a number of separate accounts had been opened under the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act (11 of 1859). The three sets of plaintiffs-appellants now before the Board were all interested in Burra Hudda Rai Dwarka Nath Chakravarti Bahadur (respondent 1) was interested in both and had a separate account or accounts in each. In Burra Hudda he had an interest in some 30 villages : in Chota Hudda he had a one-half interest in respect of which ho had been allotted in severally by a final decree for partition about 100 bighas.

By the end of 1927 the owners of two separate accounts in Burra Hudda-numbered 7 and 8-had defaulted in payment of their share of the revenue and their separate interest had been put up for sale without result. On 5th and 6th January 1928, the Collector directed that the whole estate be put up for sale on 23rd February 1928. On that date the entire estate was sold by auction to one Suresh Sanyal for Rs. 85,000. In the events which have since happened the persons entitled in right of this purchase are (1) respondent 3A, Bahadur Singh Singhee, the only contesting defendant, in respect of Burra Hudda, (2) respondent 1 in respect of Chota Hudda which he purchased from Singhee for Rs.12,000, (3) certain persons formerly interested in Chota Hudda who have been allowed by respondent 1 to buy back from him their former interest.

The three suits which have given rise to the present consolidated appeal were filed in 1928 and 1929. By their plaints the appellants challenged the revenue sale of 23rd February 1928, as wholly void for want of jurisdiction and bad for irregularities, but the learned Subordinate Judge found against these contentions. They also alleged however that in respect to the revenue sale respondent 1 in concert with his son Gopal, and with Suresh Sanyal (the nominal bidder) had been guilty of fraud or improper conduct to the prejudice of his co-owners in the estate, and contended that, by reason thereof, the purchase was one in which they could claim to share by recovering their former interest in Burra Hudda upon payment of a proper proportion of the purchase money. In each case the learned trial Judge accepted this contention and gave the plaintiffs a decree (5th January 1931), directing Bahadur Singh Singhee to convey to them their former share on receipt of a proportionate part of Rs. 85,000. Relief was granted in this form as being in accordance with the decision of this Board in Deonandan Prashad v. Janki Singh , (1916) 3 AIR PC 227=39 IC 346=44 Cal 573=44 IA 30 (PC), where a co-owner's mortgagee by making default in the payment of revenue had intentionally brought about a revenue sale in order to purchase himself.

The learned Judges of the High Court (C.C. Ghose and S.K. Ghose JJ.) on appeal dismissed the three suits with costs (11th April 1933), holding that no fraud or improper conduct towards his co-owners in respect of the revenue sale had been proved against respondent 1, and that it was no longer open to the plaintiffs, who had carried in no cross-objections to the decree of the trial Court, to maintain that the revenue sale should be set aside for want of jurisdiction or irregularity.

Suresh Sanyal was the manager employed by a widow lady Srimati Sailasnta Debi who was guardian of her two minor sons. She had been minded for some time before 1928 to buy touzi No. 151 on behalf of her sons if it was brought to sale and was prepared to bid up to fou