AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Respondent''s Vakil reports no instructions and withdraws from the case which is therefore heard ex parte.
The question of limitation is first argued and on that we think appellant must succeed.
The suit is to set aside a revenue sale and limitation is governed by Article 12(b) of Schedule I of the Limitation Act. This allows one year from
the time when the sale is confirmed or would otherwise have become final and conclusive. There is no provision in the Estates Land Act similar to
the one in C.P.C., Order 21, Rule 92, for confirmation of sale and for the sale thereupon becoming absolute and consequently the second clause
of Article 12(b) of the Limitation Act must be applied. Section 124(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act provides that on payment of the purchase
money and on the expiration of thirty days the Court shall if no application has been made to set aside the sale u/s 131 or if such application has
been made and rejected, grant a certificate of sale to the purchaser stating the property sold, the name of the purchaser, the date of sale. From this
it is clear that such a sale would become final, in the absence of any application u/s 131, Estates Land Act, 30 days after the date of sale. This suit
was brought more than one year after such date in the present case and is therefore barred by limitation. We are supported in this conclusion by
the decision in Karuppa Thevan v. Vasudeva Sastri ILR 6 M. 148. This was under the Madras Act II of 1864 in which Section 38 provides that
the Collector shall make an order confirming the sale. The absence of this provision in the Estates Land Act makes the present case so much the
stronger.
We may also refer to Bhuban Mohan Maitra v. Girish Narain Moonshi 13 C.L.J. 339 where a similar view prevailed. In Appeal No. 280 of
1920, there is an allegation in the plaint that a petition was put in by plaintiff to set aside the sale but Ex. F shows that this application was really a
suit u/s 112 and not an application u/s 131. The appeals are accordingly allowed and plaintiff''s suits dismissed with costs throughout.