Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The substantial question in this appeal is whether Chinnammal Achi v. Saminatha Malvaroyan I.L.R.(1907) Mad. 367 was rightly decided by this Court. The appellant contends that the decision conflicts with the judgment of the Privy Council in Baijnath Sahai v. Ravngut Singh and therefore cannot be allowed to stand.

2. The appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Gudivada for a decree setting aside a sale of immovable property which had taken place under the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act. The allegation was that the fourth defendant had by fraud secured the order for the sale of the property. The sale took place on the 18th July, 1932, and was confirmed by the Deputy Collector on the 28th September, 1932. The appellant discovered the fraud on the 15th November, 1932, and three days later applied to the Collector for an order setting aside the sale. By an order dated the 30th June, 1933, the Collector refused to interfere and consequently on the 18th July, 1933, the appellant filed the present suit. -

3. Section 59 of the Act allows an aggrieved party to apply to the civil Court for redress, subject to th