(1.) The decree holder in O.S. No. 6 of 1120 of the District Munsiffs Court of Adoor is the Revision Petitioner. The decree is for redemption of a mortgage. During the pendency of the suit item No. 5 of the plaint schedule properties was sold in revenue auction for arrears of jenmikarom due on that property and was purchased by the counter petitioner. He obtained delivery of possession of the property as per the revenue sale. When the decree holder applied for delivery of this property the counter petitioner obstructed and the court below allowed the obstruction petition. The Revision is from that order.
(2.) The only question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the revenue sale is affected by lis pendens by reason of the pendency of the suit in redemption. In 1949 T.L.R. 36 (Janaki Amma v. Dewan of Travancore) a Division Bench of the Travancore High Court held that a revenue sale of property which was the subject matter of a partition suit was vitiated by lis pendens. That was a suit for setting aside the revenue sale which took place during the pendency of the suit for partition. It was held that the revenue sale was not binding on the tarawad as the karanavan of the tarawad was not a party to the revenue proceedings. It was also held that the revenue sale was vitiated by lis pendens. This decision was however not followed by this court in 1950 KLT 322 (Eravi Krishna Karthavu v. Kumaraswami Nampoothiripad) which is a decision by a Single Judge. Both these decisions were considered by us in 1951 KLT 660 (Gopalan Nair v. Barathi Amma). We held that in case that the principle underlying S. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act relating to lis pendens does not apply to cases of revenue sale for arrears of tax due on the property. That case was decided on the 4th September 1951. Another Division Bench of this Court considered the same question in the case reported in 1952 KLT 30 (Karunakaran Pillai v. Kesava Pillai) which was decided on the 6th September 1951. In that case also it was held that the application of the doctrine of lis pendens will not extend to a revenue sale held during the pendency of a suit. Since the question has been elaborately discussed in the above cases we do not think it necessary to discuss it again in this revision.
(3.) It was however argued on behalf of the Revision Petitioner that the revenue sale in this case was not for arrears of tax due on the property but was for arrears of jenmikarom. Under S. 39 of the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act (Act I of 1068) all lands brought to sale on account of arrears of revenue due thereon shall be sold free of all encumbrances. It is argued that this provision will not apply to sale of lands under the Revenue Recovery Act for arrears of jenmikarom. It is therefore argued that the principle laid down in the decision in 1950 KLT 322, 1951 KLT 660 and 1952 KLT 30 does not apply to the facts of this case.