A sale held in contravention of the provisions of Order 21, Rules 68 and 69 of the Civil Procedure Code is not a nullity but a mere irregularity.

Sinha, J.

1. These are two miscellaneous second appeals arising out of applications made by the appellant under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code.

2. The landlords-respondents filed two rent suits, being Rent Suits Nos. 1876 and 1886 of 1936, against the appellant and the other members of his family including the uncle and the brother of the appellant; the appellant was at that time a minor. The decrees in these two rent suits were executed in 1937, the execution cases being 1537 and 1535 of 1937. In one case the holding consisting of ll bighas 3 kathas and in the other consisting of 2 bighas and 13 kathas were sold for Rs. 271/3/- and Rs. 159/12/- respectively on 14-7-1938 and were purchased by the landlords-decree-holders. Some of the lands purchased were settled by the landlords, respondents 1st party, with the respondents 2nd party, and respondents 3rd party are the uncle and brother of the appellant. These applications under Order 21, Rule 90 were filed by the appellant on the 24th January 1947, the date of knowledge of the sale having been given in the applications as the 21st January 1947. In the applications it was alleged that the summons in the rent suits were served fraudulently and surreptitiously in collusion with the peon of the Court and the same allegation was made in regard to the service of the notice in the execution proceedings as also in the proceeding for delivery of possession. In regard to the service of notice upon the guardian-ad-litem of the appellant, there is no specific denial in the applications. All that is mentioned in the applications is that

"as it appears the opposite first party brought the petitioners guardian also in their collusion and concert and did not allow him to take a proper legal action."

It is also alleged, that the value put upon the properties in the sale proclamation was not fair and that the opposite first party fraudulently did not allow any fair valuation to be fixed out of ulterior motive. The appellant alleged in his petitions that he had "now attained age of majority", no specific date of attainment of majority is mentioned. There is no specific allegation in the petitions to bring the case within Sec.18 of the Indian Limitation Act to the effect that the appellant by means of fraud had been kept out of knowledge of his right to make an application.

3. The first Court held that the petitioner and members of his family had knowledge of the sale many years before the applications in question were filed and at page 14 of the brief there is a specific finding that the applicant got knowledge about the execution cases in question in the year 1938 and that the other members of the family of the appellant had also knowledge about the execution cases in the year 1938. It was also found that there was no evidence given by the appellant that there was any fraud by the decree-holders by which he was kept out of knowledge of his right to apply for setting aside the sale. In regard to the irregularities, the Court held that there was material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale. As regards, the Court held that the price fetched at the sale was shocking to the conscience of the Court and that the appellant had suffered substantial injury. Although the properties in each of the two execution cases were valued in the applications at Rs. 2,000.00 each, the Court found that the value of all the properties covered by the two sales could not be less than Rs. 20,000/-. It appears from the judgment of the 1st Court that on some of the lands sold there were big houses, but these houses were mostly in delapidated condition, and, in view of the prices of lands having gone up very high at about the time when the Court was considering the value of these properties, it appears the Court put the valuation at Rs. 20,000/-. The question whether the decrees for rent were rent decrees or money decrees and whether or not the appellant was in possession even after the deliver