KANAKKU NEELACANTA PILLAI MARTHANDA PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. His suit was to set aside a revenue sale relating to the plaint property which is Survey Number 2036. The property stands in the Thandaper of the 3rd defendant and for arrears of tax due from the 3rd defendant from his other properties the plaint property was sold in revenue auction on 30.12.1122. The plaintiff stated that these proceedings were initiated by the 3rd defendant collusively with the Pakuthy Officials and that the property was purchased in the name of his Kariasthan the 2nd defendant in the case. This sale was said to be vitiated by material irregularities. The plaintiffs case was that the property in question originally belonged to the 3rd defendants Illom, that the same had been demised on Kanom to one Plavannarackal house people, that his tarwad obtained a mortgage of this property before 1030 from the Kanomdars tarwad, that by lapse of time his tarwad had obtained the full right to the property, that in a partition deed in his tarwad this property was included and allotted to his share and that he had therefore the right to get a declaration of his title to the property and to see that the revenue sale was set aside. The State is the 1st defendant. Their contentions were that the Thandaper for the suit property, Thandaper No.21 stood in the name of the 3rd defendant, that the property in question was sold in revenue auction on 30.12.1122 for realisation of tax due under the said Thandaper No. 21, that demand notices were issued to the Thandaper holder, that the auction came to be conducted as the tax due was not paid by the 3rd defendant, that the plaintiff was not entitled to any notice as regards the steps taken in the revenue proceedings, that the sale was valid, that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The 2nd defendant maintained that the revenue sale and the proceedings which led to the sale were valid and binding on the plaint property and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree prayed for.

(2.) The lower court found that the plaintiff was the full owner of the plaint property, that the plaintiff though he might be the Kudiyan who had obtained an absolute right to the property by non payment of the Jenmikaram to the Jenmi for a long time was not entitled to notice, that though there had been collusion between the revenue subordinates and the 3rd defendant, with the object of getting at the property there were not sufficient materials enabling it to set aside the revenue sale, that the suit was not barred by limitation and that in view of the revenue sale the suit had to be dismissed, but without costs because of the collusion between the revenue subordinates and defendants 2 and 3.

(3.) The plaintiff appealed from the decree. The State has filed a cross appeal claiming the costs disallowed in the lower court. The 2nd defendant has filed objections to the findings that the property belonged absolutely to the plaintiff that there was collusion between the revenue authorities and the 3rd defendant, that there was some irregularity in the proceedings that led to the revenue sale, and that the suit was not barred by limitation. He also objected to the direction relating to costs.