THIRUVENGADAM PILLAI Vs. KOOLAI ALIAS MUTHUSWAMI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision in this second appeal relates to the validity of a revenue sale. The relevant facts are these. The suit properties belonged to one Ramanarayana Pillai in whose name the patta stood in the revenue registry and the total extent of land sold was about 14 acres. There was default in the payment of arrears of revenue for fasli 1340 amounting to Rs. 11--5--0. On 10th September, 1931 a notice (Ex. III) was issued under Section 25 of the Revenue Recovery Act calling upon the said Ramanarayana Pillai to pay the arrears within ten days. The notice was not personally served on him but was affixed to his house. A copy of the notice was also affixed on the land and published in the District Gazette. In the notice it was stated that the sale would take place on 12th November, 1931. Ramanarayana Pillai died on 27 October, 1931, leaving the plaintiffs his sons who were then minors. The property was sold on 12th November, 1931, and purchased for Rs. 11-12-0 by the first defendant who has since transferred the property to the third defendant. This suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the sale is null and void. It was attacked on various grounds but both the lower Courts decided against the plaintiffs and held that the sale was valid.

(2.) Mr. Thiruvenkatachari, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs has confined himself only to one ground, namely, that Ramanarayana Pillai having died before the date of sale, the sale must be held to be null and void and in support of his contention he relied on some observations of the learned Judges in Marukkolandai Ammal V/s. Secretary of State for India . In that case the registered pattadar was dead and his legal representative the widow was not registered in his place. His widow was however paying the assessment but she committed default in fasli 1331. The Collector took steps for realising the same. The requisite notices under the Revenue Recovery Act were issued in the name of the dead man and affixed to the property and the property was sold. It was held that the sale was invalid. The learned Judges observed thus: The whole procedure in connection with sale of immovable property is based on the assumption that there is a "defaulter," i.e., in the case of a human being a living person who is in default....To go through with the name of a dead man, the procedure intended for giving living men a chance of saving their property is a farce and a futility....The sale proceedings...were of no force and effect by reason of the absence of the fundamental requisite for giving the revenue authorities jurisdiction to conduct a sale, i.e., that there should be a defaulter living who can receive the notices and avoid the sale by payment of the arrears. Mr. Muthukrishna Aiyar for the contesting respondent contends that this case was distinguishable on the ground that the daughter in that case was dead even before the proceedings were initiated, whereas in the present case all the requisite notices were served on the defaulter and all that remained was to sell the property and therefore the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court could not be said to have been taken away by the mere fact that the defaulter died, that after service of the requisite notices the jurisdiction to sell the property was complete and that there is no procedure for bringing on record in the proceedings the legal representatives of the deceased defaulter.

(3.) The question is which of these contentions is tenable. A close analysis of the various provisions of the Act leads me to the conclusion that the Act contemplates the continued existence of the defaulter till the date of sale and if before the date of sale the defaulter dies, the sale would be infructuous and would pass no title to the purchaser. Section 2 of the Act says: The land, the buildings upon it, and its products, shall be regarded as the security of the public revenue. The land in that section means the land of the landholder and in the present case the ryotwari interest of the proprietor Ramanarayana Pillai. If there was default in the payment of arrears of revenue, the Act empowers Government to initiate proceedings for realising the said revenue by sale of the defaulter's moveable or immoveable property which would include land in respect whereof there has been default in the payment of revenue, or by execution against the person of the defaulter. Secs.25 to 44 deal with the procedure which the Collector is enjoined to adopt if he decides to sell the land in respect whereof arrears are due or the other immoveable property of the defaulter, and these provisions undoubtedly indicate that what will be sold will be "the land of the defaulter." Secs.26 and 44 clearly provide what it is the Collector is empowered to sell. Section 26 says: He shall proceed to recover the arrear by the attachment and sale of the defaulter's land. Section 44 says: It shall be lawful for the Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf to sell the whole or any portion of the land of a defaulter in discharge of arrear of revenue. In Subbaraya V/s. The Sub-Collector of Chingleput (1883) I.L.R. 6 Mad. 303, Innes J., explained thus the rights of the Government in regard to the realisation of revenue when default was committed, (page 310): On non-payment of the Government dues, the right to the land would be liable to forfeiture, and the Collector might proceed according to law to sell the lands. Until such procedure was taken, it is difficult to see how the mirasdars could have forfeited their right to the land....For the right of the Government is only a right to a charge on the land, and a right to forfeit, by due course of law, the title of the person holding the land who does not pay the charge. Therefore until the property is sold, the title of the defaulter to the land is not lost, and the Government could have the property sold only by due course of law, that is, by following the appropriate procedure provided by the Act. What would be sold and what would pass at the revenue sale is only the proprietory interest of the registered pattadar. That is clear from the declaration which has to be made by the Collector after the issue of a sale certificate. Under Section 39 of the Act The Collector has to advertise the name of the purchaser and the date of purchase together with a declaration of the lawful succession of such purchaser to all the rights and property of the former land-holder in the said lands. Construing this section Turner, C.J., in Zamorin of Calicut V/s. Sitarama (1884) I.L.R. 7 Mad. 405 at p. 406, observed: According to Section 3 it is the proprietor that is liable for the payment of the revenue. According to Section 39 it is his right and property that passes by the revenue sale. (Vide also the observations of Wallis, C.J., in Subbaroya Goundan V/s. Ranganadha Mudaliar (1915) 30 M.L.J. 387 : I.L.R. 40 Mad. 93 at p. 96. The form of declaration framed by the Board of Revenue and which is actually published establishes this beyond doubt.