SUBRAMANIAN Vs. KUNJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been posted before a Division Bench on reference by a learned Judge who felt that it involved important questions of law. The petitioner is the 1st judgment debtor. This CRP. arises out of an order in execution of a decree for redemption. The decree was passed on 31-7-1959. This was confirmed in appeal. After coming into force of Act 35 of 1969 the petitioner mortgagee put forward a case that he was entitled to the benefits of S.4A of the said Act and that therefore the mortgagor-decree bolder was not entitled to recover possession. Realising this difficulty the decree holder filed an application on 24/12/1970 for resumption of a portion of the decree schedule property since he was a small bolder. The prayer for resumption was of one half of the holding and 50 cents in addition for the purpose of construction of a residential building for the members of his family. Ultimately this request was allowed on 15-10-1973. A commission was issued to demarcate the area allowed to be resumed and for ascertaining the value of improvements. The Commissioner filed his report on 9-9-1974. Thereafter the petitioner filed E. A. 524 of 1974 to review the order passed on 15-10-1973 along with an application to condone the delay since it was filed cut of time. Both the applications were dismissed. Thereafter the decree holder filed E. A 596 of 1979 for delivery of the property allowed to be resumed. This was opposed by the judgment debtor. According to him, the order of resumption is bad, having been passed by a civil court which had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application and also on the ground that the petition was filed beyond the period of limitation. The court below after considering the rival contentions overruled the objections and directed deposit of the value of improvements to order delivery of the property. Hence this revision.

(2.) This petition can be disposed of without much of a discussion on the various questions of law raised on the short ground that the order dated 15-10-1973 which was sought to be reviewed without success and which is binding on the petitioner, stands. The belated attempt now to get the said order avoided with the plea of want of jurisdiction etc. cannot be entertained. He did not challenge the order by filing a revision, or by taking other effective steps. The order of resumption has therefore to stand. Even so, in view of the lengthy submissions made before us inviting us to various provisions of law to contend that the said order is without jurisdiction, we feel persuaded to refer to such contentions briefly and to answer them.

(3.) The petitioner's contentions are these: (1) An application for resumption has to be made to the Land Tribunal and not to the court The order in dispute is passed by a civil court which has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and hence the order is a nullity. (2) S.132(3)(c) does not apply to this case. S.108(3) of the amending Act does not apply since there is no proceeding on 01/01/1970. (3) In any case the petition is barred by limitation.