KASI PADAYACHI Vs. MUTHUKUMARASWAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in the civil revision petition is whether the application for delivery of possession filed by the petitioner is in time.

(2.) THE respondent herein admittedly had borrowed moneys from E. 2616, T. Palayam Rural Co -operative Agricultural Credit Society. Inasmuch as the amounts were not paid, proceedings were initiated against the respondent and an award in No. 265 of 1969 -70 and 1721 of 1969 -70 was made. Execution proceedings were resorted to as the amounts remained unpaid. It is thereafter the properties of the respondent were brought to sale for the realisation of the moneys due from him. The sale was conducted by the Co -operative Sub -Registrar (Execution and Liquidation) and Sale Officer, Cuddalore, on 5th August, 1972 and the sale was knocked down in favour of the petitioner for the highest bid of Rs. 3,800. On 6th February, 1973, by his proceedings, the Joint Registrar Chief Executive Officer and Registrar of the District South Arcot Co -operative Central Bank Limited, Cuddalore, confirmed the sale and a sale certificate was also issued to the petitioner on 18th December, 1974. There was an appeal by the respondent herein in C.M.A. No. 37 of 1973 to the Co -operative Appellate Tribunal (District Court, South Arcot. During the pendency of that appeal in I.A. No. 186 of 1973 in C.M.A. No. 37 of 1973, delivery proceedings were stayed and the stay was finally vacated on 28th September, 1974. Thereafter, on 18th July, 1977, the petitioner filed an application under Order 21, Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure in E.A. No. 15 of 1977 for delivery of possession of items 1 to 4 of the properties purchased by him as per the sale certificate dated 6th February, 1973. The principal objection that was raised by the respondent herein to this application was that it is barred by limitation. The learned District Munsif, Cuddalore who heard this application upheld the plea of the respondent and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for delivery of possession.

(3.) A consideration of the decisions rendered in relation to the provisions of the Act and the Limitation Act also establish this. In Abdul Aziz Sahib and Ors. v. Chokkan Chettiar and Anr. : (1935) 69 MLJ 821 the word "purchaser" occurring in Article 180 of the Limitation Act, 1908, has been interpreted to mean and include cases, where the decree -holder himself is the purchaser and the purchaser is not the decree -holder. It has been held that this Article applies to application for possession by a decree -holder purchaser and that the residuary Article 181 does not apply. It has also been pointed out that the application for delivery cannot be regarded as an application for execution and therefore. Article 182 cannot apply. The specific Article which has been held to be applicable by the Full Bench to such cases is Article 180. It therefore follows that the Article which would be applicable in the light of the above interpretation of Rule 70 of the Rules framed under the Act would only be Article 180 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which corresponds to Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision in &. V. Subba Rao v. The Calicut Co -operative Urban Bank Ltd. : AIR 1939 Mad 304 In that case, Venkataramana Rao, J., had occasion to consider the question of limitation with reference to the enforcement of awards of the Registrar functioning under the Co -operative Societies Act before the civil Court.