NEDUNGADI BANK LTD Vs. TAHSILDAR OTTAPALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th respondent owns Mohan Industries, Ottappalam, where he makes steel furniture. He also owns a rice mill. The factory and the rice mill are situate in the same premises. He created an equitable mortgage over these premises, the factory thereon with all fixtures therein, and over some other items of immovable properties in favour of the petitioner Bank. The mortgage was on 25-5-1967 and for Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 1,50,000/- then due from him to the Bank and Rs. 50,000/- upto which he may draw from the Bank thereafter. The Bank instituted a suit, O.S. No. 26 of 1972 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottappalam, on this mortgage. That Court on 29-11-1973 passed a preliminary decree for sale, the decree amount being Rs. 3,31,084.57 with future interest. Before the preliminary decree under orders of Court the Bank removed into its custody some of the fixtures of the factory.

(2.) On 19-2-1972 the 4th respondent entered into Ext. R1 contract with the Government agreeing to hull levy-paddy entrusted to him by the Civil Supplies Department. It appears that he failed to return 2136.700 quintals of paddy entrusted to him for hulling and that he is liable to the Government for the price thereof, which according to respondents 1 to 3 is Rs. 3,63,280.99. For realisation of this amount the Government as per Ext. P4 notice of attachment of immovable properties attached under the provisions of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for brevity, the Act) the 4th respondent's immovable properties including the properties under mortgage and covered by the preliminary decree This notice is dated 30-10-1974. The Bank's Ext. P5 objection as regards the properties under mortgage was rejected by the 1st respondent Tahsildar as per his Ext. P8 order of 10-12-1974. This was followed by Ex. P9 sale notice relating to the sale of the attached properties. The 1st respondent also requested the Bank to afford facilities to attach under the provisions of the Act the fixtures removed by it to its custody. This was as per Ext P1 notice dated 30-10-1974. Overruling the Bank's objection the 1st respondent as per Ext. P6 letter dated 10-12-1974 informed the Bank that the fixtures are liable to be attached and under threat of sealing the 'premises' required the Bank to make the said fixtures available for attachment. He also issued Ext. P7 instruction to that effect to the 2nd respondent, the Revenue Inspector.

(3.) The Act is primarily concerned with recovery of Public Revenue due on land which as per S.2(j) means: