JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in-spite of repeated calls. Hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte.

3. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2002 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Spl. Judge-II, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 36 of 1998 arising out of Title Suit No. 51 of 1981 whereby and where under, the learned first appellate court in its judgment of reversal has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.04.1998 passed the learned Sub-Judge-IV, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 51 of 1981.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 8,000/- by the defendant no. 2 in the year 1974. The loan was to be repaid by the plaintiff within seven years with annual installment but the plaintiff fell ill and because of some other unforeseen incidents, he could not repay the annual installements. The defendant no. 1 in collusion with defendant nos. 4 and 5, who had greedy eyes over the property of the plaintiff and who wanted to take the advantage of the distress of the plaintiff; got initiated a certificate proceeding for realization of Rs. 3,402.77/- even before the expiry of seven years. The plaintiff next pleaded that no notice was ever tendered to him under Section 7 of Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act nor were the provisions of rules made under the said Act in the matter of service of notice complied with. The plaintiff next pleaded that on the false pretext that the plaintiff has concealed all the movable assets, the defendants got issued warrant of arrest against the plaintiff and illegally got him arrested. The plaintiff was illegally sent to civil prison in Ranchi Central Jail where he was illegally detained from 06.06.1977 to 20.06.1977. The plaintiff then pleaded that the defendant no. 3 had no authority to issue warrant of arrest against the plaintiff nor had he any right to send the plaintiff to civil prison. The plaintiff then pleaded that he having no idea or knowledge of the certificate proceeding or any demand from the defendant no. 3 could not, supposed to have concealed his movable assets. The plaintiff then pleaded that he was ultimately released from the civil prison after his wife paid Rs. 200/-. Ultimately, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with the defendant no. 3, 4 and 5 illegally and by fraudulent method put the suit properties to auction sale and the defendant nos. 4 and 5 purchased the said lands on a meagre amount of Rs. 11,000/- although the price of the land and the properties including the suit land at the relevant time was above Rs. 50,000/-. The plaintiff was informed about the auction sale only after the auction was held and the suit properties were purchased by the defendant nos. 4 and 5. Immediately, after coming to know of the certificate proceeding, the auction sale, the plaintiff rushed to the defendant no. 3 and obtained the certified copy of the order sheet of the certificate case. The plaintiff asserted and submitted that the certificate proceeding and the sale of the suit properties are vitiated by fraud and illegality inter-alia for the following reasons:

(i) No notice was ever served or tendered on the plaintiff under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act.

(ii) The plaintiff was illegally detained and sent to civil prison in the midst of agricultural session even though the time to repay the loan did not expire.

(iii) No notice was given to the plaintiff about the sale proclamation, nor was he given any information about it. The proclamation was not even properly published, so that there was no bidder except the defendant nos. 4 and 5, other bidders were set up by the defendant nos. 4 and 5.

(iv) The sale proclamation was signed by the B