KOCHAPPI ASARI Vs. NARAYANA PILLAI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADICHAN Asari Kochappi Asari, the appellant in these three appeals was the 1st defendant in O.S. Nos. 111, 113 and 112 of 1951 of the District Court of Trivandrum from which these appeals arise. The 2nd defendant in all the suits was the State. As the question for decision was common to all the suits, the three cases were tried and disposed of together by the court below and the appeals were also heard together. Different plots of land belonging to the 1st defendant were sold in revenue sale for recovery of arrears of tax and were purchased by the respective plaintiffs in the three suits. The 1st defendant applied for cancellation of the sale but his applications proved unsuccessful. His revision petitions before the Government were dismissed by order Ext. B dated 23 -9 -1946 and the properties sold were delivered over to the auction purchasers. After keeping quiet for nearly 4 years the 1st defendant filed petitions before the Government for reviewing the order dated 23 -9 -1946 and setting aside the sales. These review petitions were allowed by order dated 12 -1 -1951. The orders passed in review are sought to be quashed in the three suits, mainly on the ground that the Government had no power under the Revenue Recovery Act to review prior decisions. It was also urged by the plaintiffs that the sales were validly conducted. The 1st defendant contended that the Government had jurisdiction to review the prior orders and that the revenue sales were void and inoperative. The trial court held that the Government had no power to review its prior decisions and that the sales were valid. The orders passed in review were therefore set aside and the plaintiffs were given decrees for recovery of possession of the properties with mesne profits, as the 1st defendant had obtained delivery of possession on the strength of the orders in review. The 1st defendant has preferred these appeals from the respective decrees in the three suits.

(2.) THE main point for decision is whether the Government had jurisdiction to review the prior decision dismissing the revision petitions. The sales in question were conducted on 22 -12 -1111, 16 -11 -1114, 12 -9 -1110 and 6 -12 -1107, when the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act I of 1068 was in force. Revisional jurisdiction was conferred on the Dewan by Section 50 of the Act which provided as follows: - -