STATE OF KERALA Vs. MOHIDEEN KUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal on behalf of the State, the first defendant appellant, the learned Government Pleader challenges the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge, Quilon accepting a claim made by the plaintiff respondent regarding the validity and legality of a purchase of property made by him on 26-7-54 from the second defendant in these proceedings. The second defendant appears to have been an Abkari contractor under the State and he obviously owed amounts to the Government.

(2.) On behalf of the State it is seen that a notice of demand was issued to the second defendant on 5-6-54 evidenced by Ext. P10, but that notice is under S.23A of the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act. The legality of that notice in considering, the claim now made by the State, under S.32 of the Travancore Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, will be considered by me later. It may be pointed out that the particular item, with which we are concerned in these proceedings, namely survey No. 13191, does not find a place in the said notice, though several other survey numbers are referred to. There is also no controversy that the said notice was personally served on the second defendant on 14-6-54. The plaintiff purchased the suit item on 26-7-54, by a registered document Ext. P1, executed by the second defendant in his favour for a consideration of Rs. 5000/-.

(3.) It is also seen that on 13-6-58 another notice was issued by the Tahsildar dated 7-6-58, Ext. P 6, under S.24 of the Travancore Cochin Revenue Recovery Act 1951 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. That was a notice dated 13-6-58 issued to the Plaintiff calling upon him to pay the Abkari dues of the 2nd defendant and threatening to proceed to recover the same by way of attachment and sale, in default by proceeding as against the property mentioned therein. That notice there is no controversy specifically refers to only one item of property namely the suit item bearing Sy. No. 13191. There is nothing to show that this notice was served on the 2nd defendant, the defaulter.