Authored By : Henry Thoby Princep, Macpherson

Henry Thoby Princep and Macpherson, JJ.

1. The irregularity complained of in the publication of thesale proclamation is that the proclamation was not fixed up in any part of theproperties sold. This objection as regards the Husnabad property is groundless.The evidence shows that the decree-holders and judgment-debtors have theircutcheries on the opposite sides of a courtyard, that of the former being onthe south and north sides, and that of the latter on the west side. The noticewas attached to the house on the north side, because the western house is saidto have been at the time under repair and the judgment-debtors were using thenorth house. The latter fact is denied by witness No. 10 of thejudgment-debtors, but the fact of suspension being proved, and the propertybeing joint, there was, we think, a sufficient compliance with the law,whatever the truth may be as to the occupation of the particular rooms. The returnof the peon who proclaimed the sale does not show that a copy of theproclamation was fixed up in any part of the Tarabolia and Abdullapurproperties. On the contrary, he seems to have been furnished with only one copyof the proclamation for publication in this way, though the sale was in allother respects properly published. This was, we think, an irregularity. It hasbeen held, and, in our opinion, rightly, in Kalytara Chowdhrain v. RamcoomarGoopta I.L.R. 7 Cal. 466 that under Section 289 of the Civil Procedure Code, acopy of the sale proclamation must be fixed up in some conspicuous part of theproperty. When several separate properties are attached under one proceeding ororder, in one execution case, the attachment is separate and distinct as regardseach. The words "on the spot where the property is attached" inSection 289 must refer to each property attached, and not to the whole in alump. When, therefore, distinct properties are proclaimed for sale in oneexecution, it is not sufficient to affix one copy of a general proclamationcovering all of them on a part of one only of such properties; it must beaffixed on each. The object of the section is to give due notice of theintended sale of each attached property, and this would be defeated if, whenthere are several distinct and unconnected properties, a general saleproclamation is affixed to one only.

2. We are unable, however, to hold that in the present casethe irregularity is a sufficient ground for setting aside the sale, as wecannot trace to it the damage complained of. It is urged that the decision ofthe Privy Council in Olpherts v. Mahabir Pershad Singh L.R. 10 IndAp 25 doesnot apply; but it is quite clear that, when there is no evidence to connect aninjury with an irregularity, the one must at least flow reasonably andnaturally from the other and be attributable to it alone. The appellants do notattempt to prove that there was a paucity of bidders owing to defectivepublication. On the contrary, their case is, that there were a number ofpersons who, but for the conduct of the decree-holders, would have bid morethan the properties actually realized. They fail to prove this, and we cannotinfer that there was from other causes an absence of bidders.

3. The appeals must therefore be dismissed with costs.

.

Tripura Sundari and Ors.vs. Durga Churn Pal and Ors.(13.09.1884 - CALHC)