BHASKARAN Vs. DAMODARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition arises from an order dated 1-12-1975 made by the learned Munsiff, Attingal, whereby the petitioner's application under S.132(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 ('the Act'), was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not a tenant within the meaning of S.4A of the Act.

(2.) The petitioner was the 4th defendant in O.S. No. 6 of 1964 which was a suit for redemption. The suit was decreed on 23-12-1955. The decree provided for the payment of a sum of Rs. 500/-together with the value of improvements determined at Rs. 943.92 as a condition for redemption. The value of improvements was enhanced in appeal by Rs. 256.84. The decree holder filed execution petition. The petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 16315 of 1960 on 1-11-1960 claiming the benefits of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act, 1958 (Act 29/58). Thereafter the decree holder (the present respondent) deposited in Court on 21-6-1961 the amount payable under the decree. In August 1975, the petitioner's application for the value of improvements in terms of Act 29 of 1958 was allowed by the execution court and the total value (including the amount provided in the decree) was determined at Rs. 4149.66. The appeals filed by the petitioner against the order in CMP. 16315 of 1960 were rejected. Thus the value of improvements, as determined by the execution court, after deducting from it the amount already deposited by the respondent on 21-6-1961 in terms of the decree, became due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner. Admittedly the balance amount has neither been paid over to the petitioner nor deposited in court. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 2340/75 to reopen the decree in terms of S.132(3) of the Act. That application was rejected by the impugned order against which the petitioner filed an appeal which was found to be not maintainable, for there was no provision for appeal.

(3.) This civil revision petition was filed only on 25-7-1977. If the period taken in appeal is to be excluded, the CRP. cannot be considered to have been filed out of time. The appeal was prosecuted in the bona fide belief that it was maintainable, although it later turned out to be not so. In the circumstances I am of the view that S.14 of the Limitation Act applies to the present case, and I hold that the CRP. is filed within time