NANI AMMA NANNINI AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For realisation of arrears of revenue the suit property came to be sold in auction on 30-9-1116 M.E. and the sale confirmed by the Assistant Peistikar, Alleppey, on 29-12-1116. Pursuant to the sale, delivery of posses-sion was effected on 6-4-1120 in favour of the auction purchaser, who is a brother of the plaintiff. The plaintifwas a hypothecates of the property under the original owners. She claims to have obtained assignment of the auction purchaser's rights and thereby to have become the absolute owner of the suit property. On 31-10-1122 defendants 2 and 3 claiming to be interested in the property moved a petition for revision of the order confirming the revenue sale before the District Collector, Quilon, which came to be disposed of on 12-9-1952 by an order which reads as follows :

(2.) in Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secy, of State, 54 Ind App 338 : ( AIR 1927 PC 176 ), the Judicial Committee held S.80 (C. P. C.) to "impose a statutory and unquafilled obligation upon the court" and therefore the suit instituted before the expiry of the period prescribed under the Section "unsustainable in liming" as against the Government or the public officer concerned. Twenty years Eater, in Vellayan Chettiar v. The Govt. of the Province of Madras, 74 Ind App 223 : ( AIR 1947 PC 197 ), the Imperativeness of the section was again considered by the Privy Council and it was held that the provision was one that could be waived by the party for whose benefit it is enacted.

(3.) "The object of S.80" observed the Supreme Court in The State of Madras v. C. P. Agencies, AIR 1960 SC 1309