Judgement Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (July 11, 1899) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr (March 22, 1897). The appellants, who are the three sons of the late Maharaj Kumar Babu Har Pershad Singh, sued to set aside the sale of certain shares in four mouzahs in which the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants had a proprietary interest, and which were purchased by the first defendant on September 24, 1894, at a sale for arrears of revenue. The plaint alleged that four mouzahs named Sonahye Madwa, Dhad, and Padmawat, which formed part of the mehal of Bisthazari, were separated from it and assessed at an annual revenue of Rs. 548 63 Law Rep. 31 Ind. App. 52 ( 1903- 1904) Maharaj Kumar Bagheswari v. Khaja Mahomed Gowhar 164 3a. Of this separated portion the plaintiffs father purchased the whole of Padmawat and a portion of Madwa, the residue being the property of the pro forma defendants. On September 12, 1894, the entire sepa-rated portion was sold on account of Rs. 656, being arrears of revenue up to June, 1894, and was purchased by the first defendant for Rs. 13,250. Against this sale petitions were presented by the plaintiffs father and some of the other defendants to the Commissioner of Bhagulpore, but they were rejected on the report of the Collector of Monghyr on May 14, and the auction sale was confirmed. The grounds on which it was alleged that the sale should he set aside fell under the following heads — 1. 1. That notices which were necessary under ss. 5, 6, and 7 of Act XI. of 1859 were irregular in form and were not properly served. 2. 2. That the property was at the time under Civil Court attachment, and that the Collector had issued an order on July 23, 1894, exempting it from sale on that account. 3. 3. That the price was inadequate, the real value of the property sold being Rs. 36,000, such inadequacy of price being caused by the irregularities complained of. 4. 4. That although the division of Bisthazari actually sold was in arrears, there was a surplus in the possession of Government upon the whole mehal which covered the arrear, and therefore the sale was illegal. The first defendant denied all the irregularities complained of, and that any inadequacy of price resulted therefrom. 4. 4. That although the division of Bisthazari actually sold was in arrears, there was a surplus in the possession of Government upon the whole mehal which covered the arrear, and therefore the sale was illegal. The first defendant denied all the irregularities complained of, and that any inadequacy of price resulted therefrom. The notices were said to have been irregular in form, in that they stated that in default of payment of an arrear of Rs. 529 4a. 11p. on June 7 the share would be sold on September 24. They contained a statement (which was erroneous) that the property "is attached by the Civil Court for Rs. 588 14a. 11p.” The Collectors order of July 23, 1894, ordered generally that estates under attachment by a Civil Court should not be sold, but did not specifically relate to the sale for arrears of the division in question. A notice of even date and omitting any reference to attachment by a Civil Court was made under ss. 6 and 13, and stated that the sale would be on September 24, 1894, for an arrear of Rs. 656 15a. 11p. The Subordinate Judge decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, lie found that there was no arrear legally due on account of the plaintiffs share, or on account of the estate sold. He held that a part of the claim was for malikana, and that as malikana is something different from revenue, notice under s. 5 was necessary. He thought there was no satisfactory proof that the notice was ever served, and in any case the notice was insufficient, as it did not include the full amount of Rs. 656 for which the property was sold, and omitted particulars which should have been given. He found that the notice under s. 6 of the Act had been served, but that there was no evidence to shew when the attachment for Rs. 588 14a. 11p. was received. He, however, considered that the sale was forbidden by the Collectors order of July 23, 1894; and that all these irregularities were sufficient to account for the inadequacy of the price realized at the sale. 588 14a. 11p. was received. He, however, considered that the sale was forbidden by the Collectors order of July 23, 1894; and that all these irregularities were sufficient to account for the inadequacy of the price realized at the sale. The High Court on the appeal of the first defendant set aside this decree, and decided that there was no difference between Government revenue and malikana, as both were to be paid to Government at one and the same time and in the same kists ; that malikana was classified as land revenue under s. 2, Act XI. of 1859, and s. 1, Act VII. of 1868 B.C. 63 Law Rep. 31 Ind. App. 52 ( 1903- 1904) Maharaj Kumar Bagheswari v. Khaja Mahomed Gowhar 165 They found that the properties were not under attachment at the time of the issue of the notification. The statements in the notification to that effect were mistakes. The judgment proceeded to find as follows " The third point is that the arrears were due, not only for the current year immediately preceding, but for the previous years, namely, for the year 1892; and on this point the learned pleader for the respondent relied upon the evidence of Bajrangi Sahai. It certainly appears from the evidence of this witness that if the malikana be calculated alone, there were arrears for the year 1892 due on the date of the issue of this notice, but it is not necessary that malikana should be calculated separately from land revenue. The revenue authorities are entitled to calculate both together, and that being so, it is evident that on the date of the issue of the notice there could not have been more than one years demand due. The Government demand for the share of the estate in question sold was for Rs. 548 8a. 3p., as mentioned in the plaint and in the notice issued under s. 5, and as the arrear that was then due was only Rs. 529, it is evident that the amount due was less than one years rent. " For all these reasons we think that no notice under s. 5, Act XI. of 1859, was necessary, and that this contention of the plaintiff falls to the ground. 529, it is evident that the amount due was less than one years rent. " For all these reasons we think that no notice under s. 5, Act XI. of 1859, was necessary, and that this contention of the plaintiff falls to the ground. " It is therefore superfluous for us to enter into the other objections raised to the notice, but we may say that, in our opinion, there is no ground for supposing that the notice was invalid or imperfect. " The notice mentioned the nature and amount of the arrear or demand due, and it specified the latest date on which payment would be received, and the date on which the property would be sold. " We think that under the circumstances this was a good notice. " The learned pleader for the respondent, however, contends that it was not a good notice, because the amount of arrears mentioned in the notice, Rs. 529, was the arrear due at the end of March, and he says that this notice, which was issued on the 15th May, should have specified the arrears which became due subsequently, and for which the property was ultimately sold. " We think there is no force in this contention. "It was utterly impossible for the Collector when issuing the notice of May 15 to include in that notice arrears which had not then accrued, and there is no reason for saying that the notice was bad on this ground. " We have felt some difficulty in this case as to whether the Collector was justified in selling the property on September 24 for subsequent arrears as well as for the arrears mentioned in the notice. " It appears that he sold the property for Rs. 656, whereas he specified in the notice that the arrears due were Rs. 529. "We think, however, that there is no ground for supposing that this vitiates the sale. " It appears that he sold the property for Rs. 656, whereas he specified in the notice that the arrears due were Rs. 529. "We think, however, that there is no ground for supposing that this vitiates the sale. " In the first place, the Collector seems to have acted under s. 31, Act XI of 1859; and in the second place, this point was not taken either in the Court below or before the Commissioner, and, therefore, cannot be taken under s. 33 of the Act; and thirdly, there appears to be no authority for holding that a sale is bad because the sale was held for arrears that subsequently accrued due, as well as for arrears specified in the notice issued under s. 5. Then as to the service of notice, we do not agree with the learned Subordinate Judge in holding that the service has not been 63 Law Rep. 31 Ind. App. 52 ( 1903- 1904) Maharaj Kumar Bagheswari v. Khaja Mahomed Gowhar 166 proved." C. W. Arathoon, for the appellants, contended that the sale was bad and ought to be cancelled on account of its having been made for arrears accruing after the sale notification had been issued. The statement contained in the notification, " is attached by order of the Civil Court for Rs. 588 14a. 11p.," was sufficient to bring it within the operation of the Collectors order of July 23, 1894. It was not admitted that such statement was erroneous. With regard to the notification issued on the date of that order, it stated that the sale would be for arrears of revenue " and other demands," without separately specifying the two items of revenue and malikana, and it contained no specification of the share to be sold so as to enable an intending purchaser to know definitely what he was bidding for. There was no good reason given for overruling the finding of the lower Court that the notice was not duly served. The High Court erred also in holding that the Collector acted rightly under s. 31 of Act XI. of 1859 in making a sale for old arrears as well as such as had accrued subsequently to the notice. Cowell, appeared for the first respondent to ask for costs down to and including the filing of a printed case. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. of 1859 in making a sale for old arrears as well as such as had accrued subsequently to the notice. Cowell, appeared for the first respondent to ask for costs down to and including the filing of a printed case. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. Their Lordships are of opinion that there is no irregularity in the sale to which this appeal relates, or in the notifications issued in respect of it. All the objections, which Mr. Arathoon has placed before their Lordships very fully and very clearly, are so completely disposed of by the reasons given by the learned judges of the High Court that their Lordships are quite satisfied to adopt their judgment. It is not necessary to go through these reasons again. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal ought to be dismissed. The appellants will pay the costs of the first respondent—the only respondent who appeared—down to the filing of his case, and the costs of his application for payment thereof.