BURTON, J The Plaintiff was the owner of a piece of land some nine acres in extent and comprised in Grant 4381, which lies on the sea-shore not far from Port Dickson. He failed to pay the quit rent due to the State for the year 1930, and the Collector of Land Revenue Port Dickson took proceedings under Part XVII of the Land Code for the sale of the land. As the result of those proceedings the land was put up for Public auction on 17 December 1930 and knocked down to Sabapathypillai, the second defendant, and Shanmugam the third defendant for $ 1175. One fourth of the purchase price was deposited in the Land Office by the purchaser immediately after the sale. The land was sold by the Collector free from encumbrances, but the fourth defendant J. R. Evans held a charge over the land for $ 8000. He was not aware of the sale and did not know the land had been sold till after the sale had taken place and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 declared purchasers. He then consulted his Solicitor Mr. R. T. Foster as to the possibility of annulling the sale; but on receiving advise that the annulment was not possible, he entered into negotiations and bought the land for $ 6,000. He is now the registered Proprietor of the land. The Plaintiff now seeks to annul the sale or in the alternative claim damages against the State.

The Plaintiff admits that he never paid the quit rent for 1930 and that the Collector had the right to proceed to sell the land for the arrears; but he seeks to annul the sale on the ground of certain irregularities in the procedure. These irregularities are four in number:--

(1) The notice of sale (Exhibit A) served on the Plaintiff did not bear the official seal of the Collector.

(2) The notice of sale was served on the Plaintiff on 8th October and the sale fixed for the 3rd December. This is in breach of section 208 of the Land Code which provides that the notice of sale must specify the place and date on which such land will be sold for the recovery of arrears and costs, which shall not be less than sixty days from the service of the said notice."

(3) The notice of sale as issued under section 209 was inconsistent with the notice served on Plaintiff (Exhibit A.) in that it specified the date of the sale as December 17th, the date on which the sale was actually held. The date of the sale was altered by the Collector from December 3rd to December 17th not with the object of curing the irregularity on Exhibit A but to comply with the requirements of section 209 that a period of not less than thirty days must elapse between the date of the issue of the Gazette Notification and the date of the sale.

(4) There was a breach of Section 235 (i) of the Land Code because Shanmugam the third defendant was merely a nominee of Vasagam who was at that time Chief Clerk in the Land Office at Port Dickson.

The first three irregularities are admitted. It is only their legal effect which is in dispute; but the fourth irregularity raises an issue of fact.

Sabapathypillai, the second defendant, was called for the Plaintiff and gave evidence as follows:--

"Shanmugam is not the beneficial owner, but he holds two-thirds for

Vasagam the beneficial owner. The land was knocked down to me. After

the sale was over the arrangement was made that Vasagam wanted a share

in the land and I gave it to him ... Vasagam is co-proprietor with me

of the land. Vasagam was Land Office Clerk at Port Dickson."

And later in cross-examination he says that Vasagam asked for the share fifteen minutes after the sale. Mr. Briggs for the fourth defendant argued very strongly that even if this evidence were taken at its face value, it would not constitute a breach of section 235 (i) because the arrangement was not made till fifteen minutes after the land was knocked down, and that consequently Vasagam did not come in till the sale was complete. But if I believed Sabapathypillais evidence, I do not think