JUDGMENT

Pigot and Rampini, JJ. - This suit is instituted for a declaration of right and confirmation of possession of an estate, consisting of three mouzas in the District of Mozufferpore. The plaintiff says that the estate was sold at an auction-sale held on the 15th April 1886 in execution of a certificate, purporting to be issued under Bengal Act "VII of 1880 and dated the 13th January 1886, and that the defendant became purchaser of the estate at this sale for the price of Rs'. 560. The estate is alleged by the plaintiff to be of the value of Rs. 40,000.

2. The certificate was issued in respect of road-cess stated to be due to the amount of Rs. 43-4-C.

3. Substantially the plaintiff's case, in the plaint, is that at the time of the auction-sale he had paid up all demands due by him; that the certificate was not in due form under the Act; that no notice u/s 10 of the Act was served on the plaintiff; and that the person to whom it is (he says) untruly alleged to have been given had no authority to receive it on his behalf; that the processes under which the sale is said to have taken place were not valid and were not duly issued and executed. Fifthly, repeating his allegation of payment, he submits that on such payment the certificate of January 13th, 1886, ought to have been cancelled- and he charges that the proceedings had against him were taken in collusion with the 2nd defendant; the purchaser. He says that he has filed a petition u/s 12, but having faint hope of a remedy by that means also tiles this suit. He says that although his actual possession has not been disturbed, symbolical possession has been taken by the purchaser; and the security of his title has been thereby affected: and he asks for a declaration that the certificate of January 13th, 1886, was of no effect, and that the sale was void as the money due for road-cess and public works-cess had been paid up: for confirmation of his possession, and an order that the defendants, 2nd and 3rd parties (the 3rd as benamidar purchaser for the 2nd), have acquired no right in the estate.

4. The Secretary of State was made 1st party defendant. No written statement was filed on his behalf, and he did not appear either in the Court below or before us. He is made a party respondent in this appeal.

5. The lower Court dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appeals.

6. The estate was purchased by the plaintiff in 1882. It was formerly the property of Bibi Amina, Bibi Nesar Fatima and Munzurul Fatima. Plaintiff purchased under a deed of sale from the Land Mortgage Bank, and his name was registered, under the Land Registration Act, in 1884. Plaintiff says in his evidence that he paid the cesses for the year 1884. The cesses, in respect of which the certificate which is impeached was issued, were those falling due in 1885; they are three in number, inasmuch as the sudder jumma of the estate is Rs. 94-0-10; and under the Board's rules, for estates below Rs. 100, three kists are fixed for the year, namely, where the Fasli era prevails, June 7th, January 12th, and March 28th. The total of Rs. 43-4-6 is made up of Rs. 38-2-0 for cess, Rs. 1-15-0 for interest, and Rs. 3-3-6 for commission. The plaintiff' is a person of wealth. His income from zemindaries and indigo factories is about Rs. 1,50,000 a year. We have not, however, to regard either such considerations of apparent hardship as seem involved in the sale for Rs. 560 of an estate worth Rs. 40,000 in order to enable the State to recover from a person of great wealth the sum of Rs. 43-4-6. We have only to consider whether the proceedings taken under the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1880, were in accordance with law; and, if not, whether they were, as the plaintiff contends, defective to such a degree, that either the certificate should be cancelled and the sale set aside u/s 20, or the sale be set aside because not made under the Act at all.

7. The Act (Section 7) provides that "when any arrears of the following public demands are unpa