CHITTIRAIVEL NADAR Vs. MOOKANDI NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was owner of property in question towards 1/2 share. Towards arrears of tax his 1/2 share was brought for sale under the Revenue Recovery Act. The first petitioner purchased half share in the property in question in the said proceedings. On 26.11.1980 he was issued sale certificate. He sold the same on 25.11.1990 to the second petitioner for a sum of Rs. 65,000. On the basis of the sale certificate, the petitioners filed E.P.No.64 of 1991 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, to execute the same, relying on Section 40 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. The trial court rejected the petition on the ground that under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, the petition ought to have been filed within one year from the date of purchase. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed the above Revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied on Section 40 of the Revenue Recovery Act and submitted that the first petitioner should be treated as a decree holder and the sale in his favour under the Revenue Recovery Proceedings should be treated as a decree and that therefore the petitioners are entitled to file Execution Petition within 12 years from the date of the sale.

(3.) ARTICLE 134 of the Limitation Act applies to decrees or orders of a Civil Court, and even if the grant of a certificate by the revenue authority can be regarded as a decree or order only for the purposes of Section 40 of the said Act. It cannot be said that the same can be regarded as a decree or order of a Civil Court for all the purposes. Section 40 does not, by implication, make the law of limitation with reference to the execution of decree or orders of Civil Courts applicable to processes under the said Act. So, the trial court has rightly rejected the Execution Petition holding that Article 134 cannot be made applicable to execute the sale certificate issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.