KRISHNAN KARTHA Vs. KUMARASWAMI NAMBOODIRIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application by the revision petitioner under O.21 R.97 C.P.C. for redelivery of the property mentioned therein was dismissed by the lower court by the order sought to be revised. He had purchased this property on 20.6.1114 in auction under the Revenue Recovery Act and secured possession on 19.4.1117. The decree in the present case was passed on 22.6.1113 allowing the plaintiff to realise certain sums of money charged on the properties scheduled therein. Item 7 there is S. No. 310/5 which is the property sold in revenue auction. In execution of this decree portion of the money was realised and for the balance item 7 was sold in court auction on 19.8.1117 and purchased by the assignee decree holder. It was delivered over to the auction purchaser and the Amin filed his report to that effect on 16.10.1110. It is for the redelivery of this property that the petition was filed before the lower court.

(2.) The learned Munsiff dismissed the petition on the ground that it had not been proved that the revenue sale was for arrears of Sirkar tax due from this S.No. 310/5. As such it was the view of the lower court that the revision petitioner could rank only as a transferee pendente lite and that the decree and execution proceedings in this case would be binding on him.

(3.) Exts. I and II would show that the revenue sale was for arrears of tax due under Thandaper No. 144 of Thuravoor Vadakku pakuthy. Copy of this Thandaper No. 144 has been produced in this case and it is referred to by the Munsiff himself. That would show that the property in question is in that Thandaper. That is the twelfth item in page 3 of that document. Copies of the Revenue Sale diary and the Mahazar prepared at the time of attachment were produced in this court. Apart from these there is clear evidence to show that S. No. 310/5 is in Thandaper No. 144 and the opposite side did not dispute this. It had been held by a Full Bench in Narayanan v. Naina Muhammathu ( 28 TLJ 226 ) that a sale held for arrears of revenue is valid and will extinguish prior encumbrances even though it was held for recovery of arrears due on the land sold as well as other lands belonging to the defaulter. Thus the view of the court below that the land sold in revenue auction could be free of all encumbrances only if such sale was for arrears of tax due on that land is not correct. The sale was for arrears of tax under a Thandaper for this and other properties and that sale will also be free of all encumbrances. It may also be mentioned that copy of the Thandaper produced would show that tax due from this property was also in areas. Thus the order passed by the learned Munsiff is wrong and has to be set aside.