RABINDRA NATH SAMUEL DAWSON Vs. SIVAKASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by certificate against the judgment of the Madras High Court allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagarcoil, granted in favour of the appellant on the ground that it is barred by limitation and that the appellant cannot be allowed under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 to exclude the period during which he was prosecuting an earlier suit and appeal as it could not be said to be prosecuted bona fide.

(2.) The properties which were the subject-matter of litigation were situated in the erstwhile State of Travancore and belong to the sub Tarvadh of respondents 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 (original defendants 1-5.) They were brought to sale for arrears of land revenue and Items 1 and 2 were purchased by A. Mudaliar. The sales were confirmed, sale sanads were issued and the possession of the said items was delivered to the purchaser. Thereafter the purchaser a. Mudaliar sold them to C. T. Mudaliar who in turn sold the properties to the first plaintiff by a registered sale deed. Items 3, 4, 5 and 6 were similarly sold through Revenue sale at different times and were purchased by Shabul Hameed. The sales were confirmed, sale sanads were issued and possession of the said items delivered to the purchaser. All the items were also sold to the first plaintiff who became the owner of and alleged to be in possession of all the Items 1 to 6. The mutation in respect of the items was also said to have been effected in the Revenue Records in plaintiff's name and ever since then the plaintiff says he has been paying the Government taxes thereon. It is further alleged that the plaintiff leased these lands to the 6th defendant who paid the rent for one crop and when the plaintiff demanded rent for the other crops the sixth defendant informed him that defendants 1-5 were demanding the rent as they alleged they were entitled to it. In view of this information, plaintiff made enquiries and found that defendants 1-5 had applied to the Chief Revenue Authority for setting aside the sales and that the said authority without notice to the purchases or to himself had set aside the sales.

(3.) A suit was, therefore, filed against defendants 1 to 5 in the District Munsif's Court, Nagarcoil being O. S. 482 of 1946for a declaration that the orders setting aside the sales were without jurisdiction and void for nonconformity with Section 50 of the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act. and also on other grounds. As the sixth defendant was colluding with defendants 1-5 he was also made a party. An objection was taken by the defendants that the suit was not maintainable without making Government a party. This contention was negatived by the District Munsiff. A revision against that decision was filed in the High Court and when the matter came up for hearing the learned Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent stated on his behalf that the Government was not a necessary party to the suit; that he was not prepared to implead the State as a party to the suit and that he was prepared to take the risk of not impleading the State as a party. On this representation by the plaintiff-respondent that he was prepared to take the risk of not impeading the State the High Court dismissed the Revision petition. After the case was remanded the District Munsif tried the suit and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff on 30-6-1952. Defendants 1-5 appealed to the Distt. Court but the same was dismissed on 24-10-53. Against this judgment a second appeal was filed and it was heard by a Full Bench of the Travancore Cochin High Court which by its judgment held that the Government was a necessary party and that by reason of the failure of the plaintiff to implead to Government the suit was not maintainable. In this view the appeal was allowed and the suit dismissed.