Period of limitation for filing suit to set aside a sale.

This second appeal arises out of an action brought by the appellant for partition and separate possession of his 2/5th share in an extent of 1 acre 38 cents situated in Idayakottai Zamin, Madurai district. The suit properties originally belonged to two brothers by name Vellama Naicker and Rangappa Naicker. They conveyed their 2/5th share in the family properties by two sale deeds executed in 1927 and 1929 respectively to one Koolayappa Rowther. As the vendee failed to pay the rent due to the land-holder, the properties were brought to sale and were purchased by one Muthu Naicker, the manager of the joint family of which defendants 3 to 9 were members in 1930 and possession was taken by the auction purchasers after having obtained the necessary sale certificate. In spite of this, Gulam Muhammad, son of the said Koolayappa Rowther, sold them to the plaintiff on 14th August, 1943, as if title in this property still inhered in him. On the basis of this sale deed, the present suit is filed for the reliefs mentioned above. On 16th February, 1944, the defendants 3 to 9 who were the surviving members of the family of which Mutha Naicker was the managing member, sold the property to the 10th defendant.

The suit was contested only by the 10th defendant. He filed a written statement contending that after the revenue sale, Koolayappa Rowther had no title to property and that the auction purchasers, who acquired title to this property, conveyed it to the 10th defendant and that in any event as the suit was brought more than 16 years after the revenue sale, it was barred by limitation.

The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the revenue sale was hit by section 107 of the Madras Estates Land Act and therefore, the vendors did not get any title to the property and consequently they could not convey any title to the 10th defendant. He also found that in spite of the sale, Koolayappa Rowther, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff continued to be the owner thereof and that the sale in favour of the plaintiff passed valid title to the property. In his opinion the suit was not barred by limitation and the plaintiff could recover possession of the property at any time ignoring the sale.

On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge came to a contrary conclusion on the effect of section 107 of the Madras Estates Land Act on the revenue sale and also on the question of limitation. In the result, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit with costs.

The plaintiff who is dissatisfied with the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, has preferred this second appeal. It is urged by Mr.K.S. Ramamurthi in support of the appeal that the revenue sale is hit by section 107 of the Madras Estates Land Act and is void, and consequently, title to the property still vested in the family of the plaintiff’s vendors and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the same. On the other hand it is submitted on the other side that the sale is not governed by the provisions of section 107 of the Madras Estates Land Act.

The first question I have, therefore, to consider is whether the sale is void for contravention of section 107. Section 107 of the Madras Estates Land Act runs thus:

“No officer holding a sale of property under this Act and no person employed by or subordinate to such officer shall either directly or indirectly bid for, acquire or attempt to acquire any interest in any property sold at such sale.”

It is seen this section expressly prohibits the bidding or the purchasing of the property not only by the officers holding the sale but also by a person subordinate to such an officer. In this case, it was the Revenue Inspector that held the sale and it cannot be denied that a village munsiff is a subordinate of the officer, who held the sale. The 6th defendant, who was a member of the family of which Mutha Naicker was the manager, was holding the office of the village munsiff at the time the sale was held. The point for