Decided on November 21,1967

Chandrashekharan Pillai Appellant
The Popular Bank Ltd. Respondents


P.T.RAMAN NAYAR,J. - (1.) THE property in suit belonged to the 2nd defendant.Exts.P -1,P -2 and P -3,certified copies of proceedings of court,show that the plaintiff attached the property on 6th March 1963 in execution of a money decree against the 2nd defendant,bought the property in court sale on 2nd January1964,and obtained delivery thereof on 15th March 1965.The 1st defendant,a banking company that is being wound up,obtained a certificate under section 45 -D(6)of the Bank­ing Regulation Act in respect of a simple money debt due to it from the 2nd defendant,and,in due course,forwarded the certificate to the Collector under section 45 -T(3)of the Act.The Collector proceeded to recover the amount due under the provisions of the Travancore -Cochin Revenue Recovery Act as he was bound to do by reason of section 45 -T(4)of the Banking Regulation Act which says that the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount specified in the certificate as if it were an arrear of land revenue.On 2nd August 1963,the Tahsildar attached the suit property under sections 25 and 26 of the Travancore -Cochin Revenue Recovery Act.The property was sold under the provisions of that Act on 29th March 1966 and was bought by the 1st defendant.The plaintiff has brought this suit for a declaration of his title to and possession of the property,for a further declaration that the 1st defendant's purchase in the revenue auction pursuant to the certificate granted in B.C.C.No.51 of 1957 is not binding on the plaintiff,and for an injunction restraining the 1st defendant from taking possession of the property pursuant to his purchase.
(2.) THE 1st defendant alone contested the suit;the 2nd defendant suffered it to proceed ex parte.
(3.) THE following issues were framed: (1)Are the attachment and court sale relied upon by the plaintiff true and valid and binding on the 1st defendant ? (2)Is the plaintiff's court auction purchase subject to the attachment effected under the Revenue Recovery Act for the recovery of the amount due from the 2nd defendant to the 1st defen­dant? (3)Had the 2nd defendant any right,title or interest in the suit property when the 1st defen­dant bought the property in revenue auction? (4)Has the plaintiff obtained delivery of the pro perty pursuant to his court auction purchase? (5)Is the plaintiff entitled to the declaration and injunction he has sought? (6)To what reliefs? Issues 1 and 4(leaving out that part of issue 1 that asks whether the sale is binding on the 1st defendant,the answer to which depends on the answers to issues 2 and 3)must be found in favour of the plaintiff in the face of Exts.P -1,P -2 and P -3 which are not disputed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.