SREEDEVI NETTIYAR Vs. DEVAKI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal with leave of a learned Judge of this Court in S. A. No. 435 of 1973. The matter arose out of an application for restoration of possession under S.13B of the Kerala Laud Reforms Act Respondents 2 to 4 in that application are the appellants before us The application was originally filed with only the 10th respondent on the party array, and respondents 1 to 9 were subsequently impleaded. There is no controversy that they were impleaded beyond the period of six months from the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Act mentioned in sub clause (2) of S.13B of the Act. The only ground now agitated before us is whether, having regard to this fact respondents 1 to 9 could be impleaded as parties to the application and whether the application should not be regarded as one beyond time as far as these respondents are concerned. The other aspects dealt with in the judgments of the Munsiff, the lower appellate court, and the learned Judge of this Court have not been argued or pressed before us and we should not be understood as having dealt with any one of them.

(2.) The learned Single Judge dealt with the matter stating that the petition as such had been filed within the period of 6 months with the auction purchaser alone on the party array; that there was no provision as to the persons who are to join in an application under S.13B of the Act; that the court would direct notice to all persons, who would be affected by the order on the application, but that the same did not mean that the principles of S.21 of the Limitation Act could apply to such cases. The learned Judge quoted S.21 of the Limitation Act and said that that section expressly deals with suits and that applications are not within the scope of the Section. For the said view reliance was placed on the decisions in Chandrika v. Ram Kuer (AIR 1923 Patna 88), Mst Gulab Kuer v. Syed Mohamed Zaffar (AIR 1921 Patna 180) and Indubhushan v. Haricharan (AIR 1931 Calcutta 385). The Munsiff, on this question bad decided in favour of the present appellants holding that they could not be impleaded beyond the period of six months mentioned in S.13B of the Act. (vide Para.7 of the judgment). On appeal, the learned District Judge did not deal with this question at all. The two points posed by him for determination in the appeal were (i) whether the respondents to the appeal were bona fide purchasers for consideration and (ii) whether the appeal is belated. On the first point the District Judge held that the respondents were not bona fide purchasers; and on the second, that the appeal was maintainable.

(3.) S.21 of the Limitation Act reads as follows: --