SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(Mad) 111

Madras High Court
RAMANUJAM
Saraswathi Ammal - Appellant
Versus
T.M.Annamalai Mudaliar - Respondent
Decided On : 02/16/1972

Advocates:
R. S. Venkatachari, for Appellant; V. N. Krishna Rao, for Respondent.

A revenue sale conducted without proper notice to the person who owned the property at the relevant time is null and void.

Headnote:

REVENUE SALE - VALIDITY - SERVICE OF NOTICE - MINOR OWNER - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 114, ILLUSTRATION (E) OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - APPLICABILITY - REVENUE SALE HELD WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE TO THE MINOR OWNER IS NULL AND VOID.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff based his title to the suit property on a revenue sale held on 4-12-1961 in which he was the highest bidder and as a result of which a sale certificate had been issued in his favour. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the revenue sale on which the plaintiff relies was invalid and a nullity, and that the possession of the property continued to be with her, as guardian of her minor daughter, Elavarasi, in whose favour, there has been a bequest of the suit property under Ex. B-2. executed by her father.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the revenue sale in favour of the plaintiff has been effected without proper notice to the person who owned the property at the relevant time. The court further held that a sale of a minor's property in a revenue auction without notice to the guardian is invalid and nullity.

Issues: 1. Whether the revenue sale on which the plaintiff relies was valid and regular? 2. Whether the service of notice on the minor, Elavarasi, was proper and sufficient? 3. Whether the presumption under Section 114, Illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act could be invoked in the present case? 4. Whether the revenue sale conducted in this case on 4-12-1961, on the basis of which the plaintiff claims title, is null and void?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the revenue sale was invalid and a nullity as the notice of demand was not served on the minor, Elavarasi, who was the owner of the property at the relevant time. 2. The court held that the presumption under Section 114, Illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act could not be invoked in the present case as it was not pretended by the revenue authorities that an attempt was ever made to serve the guardian of the minor. 3. The court held that a sale of a minor's property in a revenue auction without notice to the guardian is invalid and nullity.

Final Decision: The court allowed the second appeal and held that the revenue sale in favour of the plaintiff was null and void.

JUDGMENT :- The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for injunction restraining the defendant-

appellant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff based his title to the suit property on a revenue sale held on 4-12-1961 in which he was the highest bidder and as a result of which a sale certificate had been issued in his favour. It is also the plaintiff's case that in pursuance of the revenue sale possession of the property was actually handed over to him by the revenue authorities on 24-09-1965 as per Ex. P.3, that subsequent to such delivery of possession, the defendant is attempting to trespass on the suit property and that therefore he is constrained to file the present suit for a declaration of title and for injunction.

2. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the revenue sale on which the plaintiff relies was invalid and a nullity, and that the possession of the property continued to be with her, as guardian of her minor daughter, Elavarasi, in whose favour, there has been a bequest of the suit property under Ex. B-2. executed by her father. She also stated that the validity of the will Ex. B-1 has been upheld by the Civil Court in another suit. It is also her case that in view of the revenue sale being a nullity in that neither the demand notice nor the attachment order was served on the minor, who is the owner of the property, she is entitled to resist the plaintiff's attempt to get at the property without herself filing a suit as guardian of the minor to set aside the revenue sale.

3. The courts below have held that the revenue sale, which is the basis of the plaintiff's title, is regular and valid and that the same is not vitiated by reason of non-service of notice on the minor, Elavarasi, and that the notice is found to have been duly served on the defaulter as per the records Ex. A.6. The courts below had invoked the presumption contained in Section 114. IIlustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act, for holding that the service of the demand notice and the attachment as well as notice of sale had been duly served.

4. The question, in this second appeal, is as to whether the decisions of the courts below upholding the revenue sale on the basis that there has been a proper service of notice on the defaulter are correct. Before dealing with the said question, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts. The property originally belonged to one Annamalai, who died on 18-4-1959. after executing a will dated 01-04-1959 bequeathing the suit property as well as others in favour of his minor daughter, Elavarasi, The will has been marked as Ex. B.2 in this case. Subsequently, the said minor. Elavarasi, filed a suit to establish her title to the suit property on the basis of the will. Ex. B-2, against her uncle. Palani Mudaliar, and others and that suit ended in her favour. The result was that the will Ex. B-2 has been upheld by the court. Therefore, it is clear that on the date when the property was sold in revenue auction, i. e., on 4-12-1961, the property belonged to the minor. Elavarasi. It is also clear that even on the date when the notice demanding the arrears of revenue is said to have been served, i. e., 30-7-1961. Annamalai was not alive and Elavarasi has inherited the property earlier on 18-4-1959. But. the record of the revenue sale proceedings Ex. A.6 proceeds on the basis that the defaulter. Annamalai. was alive on the date of the sale. A perusal of Exhibit A.6 shows that the personal service of the demand notice has been effected on 30-7-1961, but, it does not say on whom the personal service was effected. Admittedly, on that date Annamalai was not alive and only Elavarasi was enjoying property. Therefore, the proper person to be served on that date is the minor, Elavarasi, through her guardian. But, the proceedings Ex. A.6 does not indicate on whom the service was effected. All the entries of Ex. A. 6 right f











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top