LUKA MATHAI Vs. NEELAKANTA IYER SUBRAMONIA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By judgment dated May 26, 1970, this Court (Sikri, J., as he then was, and Ray J.) allowed Civil Appeal No. 542 of 1967, (reported in (1971) 1 SCR 629), set aside the judgment of the High Court and passed a decree in favour of the appellant after modifying the decree passed by the Trial Court. The respondent subsequently filed Review Petition No. 35 of 1970 for review on the ground that they had failed to bring to the notice of the Court the provisions of Tranvancore Regulation IX of 1094 and the fact that the loans were granted under the above Regulation. We allowed review on February 1, 1971. This judgment is however, in continuation of our earlier judgment dated May 26, 1970.

(2.) The only new point which needs discussion is the effect of the provisions of Travancore Regulation IX of 1094 on our conclusion on the fourth point in the judgment.

(3.) We had inter alia held that the "fourth point raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is fatal for the respondent". We observed that "the bonds do not give power to the Government to sell the properties other than (those ) mentioned in the bond. The properties mentioned in plaint A schedule items 2 to 5, B Schedule items 1 and 3 to 8, and C schedule items were not given as security under the bond and the Government had no authority to sell them. It is conceded on behalf of the respondent that all the properties were sold in one lot. This, in our opinion, vitiates the whole sale and we have no option but to declare that the sale of all the properties was void." The fourth point raised before us was that "the Government had no authority to attach and sell plaint A schedule items 2 to 5 and B schedule items 1 and 3 to 8 and C schedule items, which were not given as security under the bonds; and if the Government had no authority then the sale of all the properties is void." We had while dealing with the third ground also observed that "no other regulation has been brought to our notice which makes dues under this bond to be recoverable as arrears of public or land revenue."