The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the proprietor for the payment of revenue and the conclusive evidence provided by the certificate of sale in a revenue sale.

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The appellant was the owner of the land in suit. Originally he let it to the fourth defendant and allowed the patta to stand in his name. With his consent, however, he since let the land to the first defendant, who transferred his right to the second defendant, but the patta continued to stand in the name of the fourth defendant. Meanwhile, the revenue due on the land fell into arrear, and the land was sold to the respondent, under Madras Act II of 1864, in May 1881. The Subordinate Judge held that the proprietary right to the land passed to the purchaser by the revenue sale and dismissed the suit. But it is argued on second appeal that the land of the defaulter was alone liable to be sold, and that the appellant was not the defaulter, and that no written demand was served upon him as required by Section 38. Act II of 1864 does not in our judgment warrant the contention that the fourth defendant was the defaulter, and that it was his interest which passed by the revenue sale. According to Section 2 of that Act, it is the proprietary right that is liable to be sold. According to Section 1, it is the person in whom such right vests that is the landholder. According to Section 3, it is the proprietor that is liable for the payment of the revenue. According to Section 39, it is his right and property that passes by the revenue sale.

2. The material question is whether, when the patta stands in the name of a tenant, service upon him of the written demand mentioned in Section 38 is sufficient service on the proprietor. By suffering the registry to stand in the tenants name, the proprietor puts him forward as the ostensible owner, and as between him and the Government, the service upon such tenant must be taken to be, in law, service upon the real owner. He cannot complain that Government is in error in serving the written demand on the person whom he permitted to appear as the ostensible land-owner. The appeal must fail and it is dismissed with costs.

Landholder when and to whom to pay his kist.

[Section 3: Every landholder shall pay to the Collector, or other Officer empowered by him to receive it, the revenue due upon his land on or before the day on which it falls due, according to the kistbundy or other engagement, and where no particular day is fixed, then within the time when the payment falls due according to the local usage;

Board of Revenue may alter amounts and dates of payment.

Provided that, except where property is held under a Sunnud-i-Milkeut Istimrar or other similar instrument, it shall be lawful for the Board of Revenue, by notifications published in the District Gazette, to alter and fix, from time to time, the amount of the several kists or instalments and the dates at which they shall respectively become payable.]

Purchaser to be registered.

Effects of certificate.

[Section 38: Lands purchased at a public sale shall be registered in the name of the actual purchaser, who shall receive a certificate of sale signed and sealed by the Collector, which shall be conclusive evidence of the fact of the purchase in all Courts and tribunals where it may be material to establish the same, and no proof of the Collectors seal or signature shall be necessary, unless the authority before whom it is produced shall have reason to doubt its genuineness.]

Proclamation of sale. [Section 39: When lands may be purchased at public sale the Collector, or other Officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf, shall publish in the villages in which the land sold may be situated, in the Cutcherry of Taluk, in the head Cutcherry of the District, and in the District Gazette, the name of the purchaser and the date of purchase, together with a declaration of the lawful succession of such purchaser to all the rights and property of the former landholder in the said lands.]