Sevathiyarudayan vs Karuppudayan

The lower Courts have found that, with a view to injure the defendant, the Village Officers brought to sale the plaint lands which belonged to the

defendant, but were registered in the name of another person for arrears due by such person on the other lands belonging to him without personal

service on him and without any service on the defendant who was known to them to be the true owner, in direct disobedience to the Board's

Standing Orders, and that the sale was, in consequence, fraudulent. It also appears that it was illegal as opposed to the provisions of Section 44 of

the Revenue Recovery Act, as they sold one item of 1 acre and 84 cents, the largest in the patta, while there were three smaller items included in

the patta, and the arrear was only Rs. 1-14-0; the sale, therefore, was both fraudulent and illegal. It was objected that the defendant did not take

steps to sot it aside u/s 38 within thirty days, but there is nothing to show he ever heard of it until the present plaintiff tried to oust him three years

later, and, in any case, the defendant is entitled to rely on the illegality of the sale as a defence to a suit to eject, even though he had not set it aside.

Ramanasari v. Muthusami Naik 30 M. 248. This second appeal is dismissed with costs.