OUSEPH CHERIAN Vs. K.G. GOPALAKRISHNAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT 2 is the Appellant. The suit is for setting aside a decision of Government under the Travancore Land Conservancy Act and the revenue sale held under the Revenue Recovery Act. The ' plaint properties belonged to the Plaintiff's In -anoh tarwad of which the Plaintiff is the karnavan. A case under the Travancore Land Conservancy Act was taken against Govinda Filial Kochukunjan Filial, the karnavan of the Plaintiffs tarwad, on the ground that he encroached upon Sircar poromboke land. He was convicted and ordered to pay prohibitory assessment and fine. For realisation of those dues the plaint properties, which belonged to the Plaintiff's branch, were attached and sold in revenue auction on 20 -10 -1111 and purchased by Defendant 2 for Rs. 60 and odd. The total extent of the properties sold is 4 acres 12 cents. Kochukunjan Pillai preferred an appeal to the Division Peishkar, but it was dismissed. The revision petition filed by the Plaintiff before the Land Revenue Commissioner was also dismissed on 15 -11 -1115. Plaintiff, therefore, instituted this suit on 15 -8 -1116 for the reliefs mentioned above. It was alleged in the plaint that Kochukunjan Pillai did not trespass upon Sirkar poromboke land in his capacity as the karnavan of the branch tarwad of the Plaintiff and that, therefore, the Plaintiff's branch could not be made liable for the prohibitory assessment and fine payable by Kochukunan Pillai. It was also alleged that the revenue sale was vitiated by fraud and illegality and that the properties were sold for a very low price.

(2.) DEFENDANT 1 (Sircar) contended that the encroachment on poromboke land by Kochukunjan Pillai was In his capacity as the karnavan of the Plaintiff's branch tarwad, that the properties of the branch were liable to be proceeded against for the amounts due from Kochukunjan Pillai and that there was no illegality or irregularity In the conduct of the revenue sale. Defendant 2 also filed a similar written statement.

(3.) THE only question for decision in this appeal is whether the revenue sale is vitiated by illegality and material irregularity and whether it is liable to -be set aside.