RAMALINGAM CHETTIAR Vs. P K PATTABIRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - One Subramania Pillai took loan. It appears that he committed default in repaying the loan. With the result, the State of Tamil Nadu took proceedings for recovery of dues under S. 5 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In the said proceedings, the land measuring 2 acres 47 cents was put to sale by public auction treating the land as if it was owned by Subramania Pillai. The appellant herein purchased the said property at the said auction held on 21-11-1974. On 2-12-1974, the plaintiff respondent filed an application under S. 38 of the Act praying for cancellation of autction of auiction sale in favour of the appellant. His case was that Subramania Pillai was not the owner of tthe said property and in fact it belonged to him. The respondent, on 1-4-1975, filed further objections. It appears that on the basis of the two objections filed by the respondent, the Collector ordered for an enquiry. After the matter was enquired into, the Collector on 11-1-1977, rejected the application of the respondent and confirmed the sale in favour of the appellant herein. On 4-2-1977, the sale certificate was issued in favour of the appellant and the possession of the land was delivered to him on 11-2-1977. On 12-2-1977, the respondent filed a suit for declaration of his title to the land, delivery of possession of said land to him and for setting aside the auction sale in favour of the appellant. Initially, the respondent, in the said suit, did not implead the State of Tamil Nadu as one of the defendants. Subsequently, the defendant in the suit, by a separate application i.e. I.A. No. 164/1979 prayed for impleadment of State of Tamil Nadu as defendant No. 2. The said application was allowed by the trial Court on 11-10-1979 directing for impleadment of the State of Tamil Nadu. The trial Court framed several issues. One of the issues was whether the suit brought by the plaintiff was within the period of limitation. The trial Court after considering other issues held that the suit was barred by limitation as the same was not brought within six months of the date when the cause of action to the plaintiff arose. The suit was thus dismissed. The plaintiff thereafter preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court was of the view that since the plaintiff was stranger to the proceedings, the period of limitation provided under S. 59 of the Act is not applicable. In view of the matter, the appeal was allowed and the suit filed by the respondent was decreed, as prayed for. The appellant thereafter filed second appeal before the High Court but the same was dismissed. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant is in appeal before us.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that tthe suit brought by the plaintiffs respondents was barred by limitation and, therefore, it ought to have been dismissed on that ground alone. We find substance in the arguments. S. 38 of the Act provides thus :

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that any person aggrieved against an auction sale of property is entitled to file an application before the Collector within expiry of thirty days from the date of sale of immovable property on the ground of some material irregularity or mistake or fraud in publishing and conducting the sale. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs did file the said application for setting aside the auction sale within thirty days and was rejected by the Collector. The question therefore arises is, what is the period of limitation for bringing a suit in the civil Court for cancellation of an auction sale.