JUDGMENT : K.S. Govinda Pillai, J. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was for the cancellation of a revenue sale held in regard to the plaint property. The plaint property originally belonged to the 2nd defendant. He had filed I.P. No. 10 of 1109 in the District Court of Quilon for adjudicating him as an insolvent. He was accordingly adjudicated as an insolvent on 15.1.1111. On 10.2.1111 an order vesting his estate in the Official Receiver was passed in the case. For arrears of tax due on the plaint and other properties, the plaint property was sold in revenue auction for a sum of Rs. 16-7-0. The 3rd defendant was the auction-purchaser. The 3rd defendant transferred his right to the 4th defendant who in turn transferred that right to the 5th defendant. The 5th defendant took forcible possession of the property. The proceedings that terminated in the revenue auction were all conducted fraudulently and collusively and so the revenue sale was void. The Official Receiver without knowing the proceedings taken by the Sirkar for the realisation of the tax had sold the property in open auction to the 6th defendant in 1118. The 6th defendant had transferred his right to the plaintiff who had filed this suit to set aside the revenue sale and for recovery of possession of the property with mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 30/- a year. 2. The 1st defendant Sirkar contended that the revenue sale was validly held, that it was not liable to be set aside and the suit was bared by limitation. The 5th defendant supported the Sirkar. He had also contended that pursuant to the revenue sale the 3rd defendant had obtained possession of the property and that the 5th defendant was now in possession and enjoyment of the property after effecting valuable improvements thereon. The lower court found that the revenue sale was not liable to be set aside, that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. 3. Though the property had been sold in revenue auction only on 22.11.1112, i.e. after the Thandaper-holder thereof was declared insolvent, there had been no mutuation of name in revenue records. 3. Though the property had been sold in revenue auction only on 22.11.1112, i.e. after the Thandaper-holder thereof was declared insolvent, there had been no mutuation of name in revenue records. The Official Receiver in whom the property had become vested had not taken any steps to pay the arrears of tax though the vesting order had been passed as early as 10.2.1111. It was therefore clear that the Official Receiver was not entitled to any notice. The latest ruling in the Official Receiver, Kottayam v. The Dewan of Travancore (1946 T.L.R. 872) on the subject under very similar circumstances, had laid down that notice to the registered holder was sufficient, that the Official Receiver whose name had not been entered in the revenue records was not necessary and that the sale without such notice of the Receiver was valid. Thus the Official Receiver was not entitled to any notice as contended before us. 4. It was then argued that the proceedings that led to the revenue sale were vitiated by material irregularity. The point urged was that while Ext. 1 demand notice was only for Rs. 3-27-5, the property had been sold for Rs. 15-27-11 and that this was a material irregularity affecting the validity of the sale. No such case had been put forward in the plaint and the Sirkar had not been called upon to state how the property came to be sold for Rs. 15/- and odd while Ext. 1 was only for Rs. 3/- and odd. The proclamation notice Ext. II would show that this amount of Rs. 15/- and odd was on account of tax due in 1112 as well as the previous accumulated tax. Without calling upon the Sirkar to explain this, it is not proper to consider this question in appeal. No attempt had been made on the part of the plaintiff to show that the revenue sale was in any way vitiated by material irregularities affecting its validity. There are absolutely no grounds made out in this appeal which is therefore dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.