JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for setting aside a revenue sale. The sale in question was of the residue share of a certain estate, as belonging to certain defaulters. It appears that taluk Ram Chunder, bearing a Government revenue of Rs. 1194, consists of four villages, Ramchunderpur, Bosubari, Raja Rampur and Kokedahora; and separate accounts were opened in the Collectorate under the provisions of secs. 10 and 11 of Act XI of 1859 in respect, first, of 11 ana. 14 gundas 2 karas 1 kranti share of the first two villages, secondly, of 9 ana. 2 gundas 2 karas of the third village, and, thirdly, of 11 ans. 3 gundas 3 karas 1 kranti 10 til of the fourth village, the remaining shares of the said four villages being left as the residue. This residue seems to have fallen into arrears, and the Collector issued a sale notification for the purpose of the sale thereof This notification, though it gave the name of the mehal and the sadar revenue payable for it, described the property to be sold thus :---"According to Act XI of 1859, the joint share, excepting the separate shares (is to be sold). Save and except these, all other shares are exempted from sale." Then follow the names of the defaulters and the proportionate amount of revenue payable for the property to be sold. Under sec. 6 of the Revenue Sale Law, which provides for a notification of sale being issued before a mehal or a share of mehal can be sold, lays down that the notification shall specify the estate, or shares of estate which will be sold. 2. Now it seems to us that what the law contemplates is that the specification should be such as to inform intending purchasers, what may be the precise property that is to be sold. Looking at this notification of sale, we observe that it gave very little or no information to the public, and unless one were to go to the Collectorate, and look into the records there, he could not possibly ascertain what was the precise property to be sold, and in what villages that property lay. 3. Looking at this notification of sale, we observe that it gave very little or no information to the public, and unless one were to go to the Collectorate, and look into the records there, he could not possibly ascertain what was the precise property to be sold, and in what villages that property lay. 3. The Subordinate Judge accepting the contention of the Plaintiffs who hold the residue share, has found that this notification was wholly insufficient under the law; and has also found that the property was sold for much less than half its proper price, and has accordingly in view of the provisions of sec. 33 of the Act, set aside the sale. 4. We think that in this respect the Subordinate Judge has taken a right view; and moreover we think that this case is on all fours with the case of Annada Charan Mukhuli v. Kishori Mohan Rai 2 C. W. N. 479 (1892), where, under almost similar circumstances, the sale was set aside, and the learned Judges, in delivering the judgment of the Court, observed as follows :-- Now, it appears that this share was merely described in the notification of sale as the 'residue,' the Government revenue of Rs. 425 6 ans. 1 pie above referred to being also mentioned. And it is contended, and, we think, rightly contended, that the mere description of the share in question as the residue without stating at the same time what shares were to be excluded in order to arrive at that residue was an imperfect description of the share sold. It is obvious that the term 'residue' is a relative term only, and that it means what is left after excluding from the whole certain specific share; and that unless those specific shares are stated, it is impossible for intending purchasers to know what is being advertised for sale and for what they are supposed to be bidding." And later on they observe--and we think that the meaning of that (namely, sec. 6, Act XI of 1859) is clear that the share to be put up for sale must be so described that there can be no mistake about it. Merely advertising that the "residue" of an estate is to be sold without giving further particulars and stating what that "residue" is cannot be considered to be a sufficient description of any share in that estate. Merely advertising that the "residue" of an estate is to be sold without giving further particulars and stating what that "residue" is cannot be considered to be a sufficient description of any share in that estate. 5. These are observations in which we entirely agree. Furthermore the Subordinate Judge has found, and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of that finding, that the property was sold for a very inadequate price; and given the fact that there was no proper notification of sale so as to inform intending purchasers what was the precise property to be sold, and given also the fact found that the property has been sold for a very inadequate price, a Court of Justice may reasonably and legitimately infer that it was due to the irregularity complained of that the property has been sold at an inadequate price. Upon these grounds we think that there is no reason to interfere with the decree of the Court below. The result is that this appeal is dismissed with costs.