CANARA BANK Vs. THANKAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case comes up before a Division Bench on reference by Varghese Kalliath, J, doubting the correctness of the decision of a learned single Judge of this court in Maniyan v. Federal Bank Ltd. ( 1988 (2) KLT 722 ). In that case it is held that for the reason of the decree holder's election to resort to the procedure under the Revenue Recovery Act, he is precluded from executing the decree of the civil court and the decree itself is void ab initio as one passed without jurisdiction.

(2.) A similar question arises for decision in this C.R.P. The revision petitioner namely, the Canara Bank had advanced a loan to the respondent for agricultural purposes. For failure of the respondent to repay the loan, the bank took revenue recovery proceedings by resort to the notification S.R.O. 797/79 issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers under S.71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (Act 15 of 1968). The relevant part of the notification is extracted below:

(3.) Since no recovery could be effected, the bank instituted O.S. 148 of 1985 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode and obtained a decree on 30-8-1988. The decree holder bank thereafter filed E.P. 278 of 1988 for attachment and sale of the cattle purchased by the judgment debtor with the loan advanced by the bank. It is, at that stage, the judgment debtor filed E.A 45 of 1989 for a declaration that the decree obtained by the bank is null and void and cannot be executed. The execution court following the decision in Maniyan's case dismissed the execution petition declaring the decree as null and void. It is, against this, that the decree holder bank has filed this revision petition.