CHACKO THOMMAN KATHANAR Vs. NARAYANA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the decree-holder in O. S. No. 161 of 1950 of the Sub Court, Kottayam. THE decree was passed on 15 2 1951. In execution of that money decree some properties of the judgment-debtor were sold in court auction on 30 5 1960, the decree-holder himself purchasing them in part satisfaction. THE execution petition not being pursued, was dismissed on 18 7 1960. THEreafter, on 14 7 1970 the judgment-debtor applied to have the sale set aside under S.20(1) of the Kerala Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, 1970 (Act 11 of 1970) THE sale was set aside On 7 12 1972 the decree-holder submitted an application for executing the balance of the decree amount. THE learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application as barred by limitation, as per his order dated 30 1 1974. THE decision of the execution court was confirmed by the District Judge, Kottayam, in his judgment dated 11 12-1974 in A. S. No. 136 of 1974.

(2.) IN this second appeal the counsel for the appellant relies mainly on the provisions contained in S.20 of Act II of 1970 to support the contention that the execution petition was not barred by limitation According to the counsel once the sale is set aside on an application under Sub-section (1) of S.20 of Act 11 of 1970, the decree revives, and "the parties are again placed in the position they held before the date of sale and the entire decree is brought back to life and the question of limitation does not arise at all" in view of the provisions contained in sub-section (9) of S.20. I am unable to agree with this line of reasoning. S.20, as the very caption would indicate, concerns only with "Sales of immovable property to be set aside in certain cases"- The relevant portion of sub-section (1) of S.20 reads as follows:-