Madan, J.These six appeals by the defendants have been referred to us by a single Judge. The unfortunate history of this litigation begins from the year 1918 when rent Suits Nos. 693 and 723 were filed under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act by the landlords of village Kaimbo in the Ranchi District. The suits were for recovery of three years rent due in respect of four holdings of Uraon tenants of the village. The order sheets record that the suits were contested, and in the year 1919 they were decreed for very trifling amounts, ranging from 4 annas 3 pies to 4 rupees 3 annas 6 pies, found to be due after crediting various part payments. Two years later, in the year 1921, executions were taken out, but were allowed to be dismissed for default.

2. As a result of further ex parte execution proceedings the holdings were sold in June 1922, and purchased by the landlords. Meanwhile in the year 1920 rent Suit No. 330 had been filed in respect of two further holdings of Uraons in the village. Ex parte decrees were obtained in the year 1924, and the holdings were purchased in execution by the landlords in the same year. In all six cases the landlords took out delivery of possession through the Court in the year 1925. Thus in four of these cases, as appears from the facts stated above, the landlord waited till the sixth year before seizing through the Court the entire holdings of the tenants for insignificant decretal amounts, which in three of the cases were actually less than one rupee. Mean. while the landlords had obtained and realized other rent decrees from the tenants. I cannot but conclude that in the cirumstances there might have been good reason for the Bent Court to set aside the sales, but unfortunately applications filed by the tenants u/s 213, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, before that Court were rejected as having been filed more than thirty days after the sales, although the tenants pleaded that they had filed them within thirty days of their knowledge of the sales.

3. The tenants then filed title Suits Nos. 94 to 99 of 1926 against the land, lords, the present appellants, for setting aside the decrees and the consequent sales on the ground of fraud. Title Suits Nos. 94, 95, 98 and 99 were in respect of the rent decrees of the year 1918, and title Suits Nos. 96 and 97 were in respect of those of the year 1920. The plaintiffs claimed that no rents were due, and that they were ignorant of both the decrees and the execution proceedings until a peon came to the village to deliver possession to the landlords. They asked to be restored to possession of their holdings as they had been found to be out of possession in proceedings u/s 115, Criminal P.C.

4. These suits were dismissed by the Munsif in the year 1927 on the ground that no fraud had been established. This decision was upheld by the Subordinate Judge in the year 1928, but the suits were remanded for rehearing on a wholly different ground, namely that, as contended for the first time in the appeal, all six sales were without jurisdiction and void for non-issue of notice u/s 190(1), Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, while in Suits Nos. 96 and 97 the decrees were void because the tenants were minors and were unrepresented. An appeal to this Court against the order of remand was dismissed in the year 1932 on the ground that that order was not subject to appeal.

5. On remand the trial Court held that in Suits Nos. 84, 85, 88 and 89 the sales were void for non-issue of notice u/s 190(1) in the first execution cases. The Court held that in the second executions no such notices were required. In Suits Nos. 86 and 87 it was found that notices u/s 190(1) had been issued, but that the decrees were a nullity as having been passed against minors who were not properly represented by a guardian. An appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, who upheld the findings of the Munsif except that in Suits Nos. 84, 85, 88 and 89 he found that there was no proof of non-issue of notices in the first execution cases, the records of which had been destroyed; but that the second executions were void for non-issue of notices as more than one year had elapsed between the dates of filing of the two sets of executions. Against this decision the landlords have appealed to this Court.

6. The first question that has been raised is whether the Subordinate Judge in the year 1928 was entitled to remand the [suits for rehearing on issues not raised in the plaint. The remands were on questions of jurisdiction such as can be raised at any time, and it is immaterial that the tenants, as it appears, were not advised by their lawyers to raise those objections in their plaint. I hold therefore that, the order of remand was legal. The next question that arises is the effect of non-issue of notice u/s 190(1) in relation, to Suits Nos. 84, 85, 88 and 89. The section runs as follows:

A warrant of execution shall not be issued upon an; decree or order without previous notice to the party against whom execution is applied for, if, when application for the issue of the warrant is made, a period of more than one year has elapsed from the date of the decree or order, or from the date of the last previous application for execution.

7. The section corresponds to Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C. except that in the latter case notices are required only if a year has elapsed between the date of the last order in the previous execution and the date of filing the next execution. It has been found by the learned Subordinate Judge, in connexion with the four suits mentioned above, that notice u/s 190(1) was required to be issued, and that it was not issued. A similar case arose in Baldeo Das Birla and Others Vs. Lal Nilmani Nath Sahi Deo and Others, where it was held that failure to issue notice u/s 190(1) is a matter of jurisdiction, and that the subsequent sale in execution is void.

8. It was contended. for the appellants that notice u/s 190(1) is only necessary where warrant is to be issued against the person or moveable of the judgment-debtor, and that it is not required in the case of immovable property. The section however contains nothing to suggest that it was not intended to apply to all warrants issued in execution proceedings under the Act It is true that in the same chapter there are sections which refer only to warrants against the person and moveable properties, but I do not see that this is any reason for importing the same limitation into Section 190. The same point arose in the case cited above where it was held that the section applies to all warrants, and following this authority I find that the sales in execution in these four cases were void.

9. It was suggested that the plaintiffs were debarred from raising this objection owing to the dismissal of their applications u/s 213. That section applies to irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale, and does not apply to cases where the Court bad no jurisdiction to sell. In such a case the plaintiffs were entitled to file a suit u/s 214 of the Act, and I find that in Suits Nos. 84, 85, 88 and 89 the sales in execution have rightly been held to have been void.

10. In Suits Nos. 86 and 87 the decrees themselves have been found to be a nullity. In Chhattra Kumari Debi v. Radha Mohan Singhari A.I.R.1922. Pat. 291 it has been held that in the case of minor defendants the Court must see not merely that a guardian is appointed, but that the guardian has consented to act. In this case the defendants were minors, and notices were served on them through their mothers as guardians. No appearance was made on their behalf and there is no order of the Court appointing the mothers as their guardians, or showing that the guardians consented to act on their behalf. In the circumstances the decrees were rightly found to be a nullity. The result is that I find no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge in regard to any of the suits, and I would therefore dismiss these appeals. The plaintiffs are entitled to be restored forthwith to possession of their holdings.

11. There remains the question of costs. It has been found that in four of these cases the landlords seized the entire holdings of their aboriginal tenants after long delays and for non-payment of ridiculously small amounts. Meanwhile they obtained and realized other rent decrees against the tenants, who no doubt fully believed that all their dues had been satisfied. This conduct of the landlords is such as to admit of no excuse.

12. In the other two cases it has been found that ex parte decrees were obtained against minors who were unrepresented with the result that the landlords again got possession of the holdings. It is true that the plaintiffs were held to have been late in filing their applications u/s 213, Tenancy Act, and were late in putting forward their objections regarding jurisdiction on which they were ultimately successful, but I do not think that they should be made to suffer for these delays.

13. I would direct that the appellants should pay to the plaintiffs the entire costs of this litigation.

Courtney-Terrell, C. J.

I agree.