LUKA MATHAI (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE versus NEELAKANTA IYER SUBRAMONIA IYER

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 629 · Decided: 26-05-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
629 
LUKA MATHAI (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE 
v. 
NEELAKANTA IYERSUBRAMONIA IYER 
May 26, 1970 
[S. M. S1KR1 AND A. N. Rw. JJ.J 
Travancore Revenue Recovery Regulation I of 1068 M.E. s. 32(2)-
Agricultural land hypothecated to f!OVzrnment sold for non-payment of 
loan-Wrong survey numbers mentioned in proclamation of sale-Sale 
not vitiated if identity of plots not in doubt-Misdescriplion whether re-
sulted In low price-Sale is vitiated when plots other than tho.re hypothe-
cared art .1old along with those hypothecated. 
· 
The appellant hypothecated certain agricultural lands to the Travanc~re 
State Government a~ainst loans re<eeived by him. 
On his failure to repay 
the loans the plots in question were notified for sale after notice to the 
appellant. 
In the proclamation of sale the number of plot no. 54S/32A-1 
was 
wronglv 
mentioned as 545/32-11/l 
an.d the 
number 
of 
plot 
of plot no. 537/3 was wrongly mentioned as 532/3. Certain other plots 
held by the acpellant although not hypothecated to the Government were 
al•o sold. 
Tho appellant presented a cetition to the 
Division Pesllkar 
challengin~ the aforesaid revenue sale without success. The acpellant th~n 
filed a suit for setting aside the 
sale and redcmction of the mort~n~e. 
The trial court partly decreed the suit holdin~ that the sale was a nullity, 
The Hi!!!h Court. however, reversed the iud,mteT\t and dismissed the ~uit. 
With certificate anneal was flied in this Court. The appella11t contended : 
(i} that the revenue oale wu a nullity because in effect and •ubstance 
no proclamation of sate was issued in as much as wrong revenue numbers 
were 
mentio~d therein, (ii) that on account of wron~. number. .being 
mentioned property worth. Rs. 1.00.000 had been sold for a mea~re sum 
of Rs. 4,510; (iii) that under the Travancore Recovery Regulati.on the 
propertv in question could not be brouqht to sale and (iv) that the Gov-
ernment had no authority to attach and sell plots which were never hypo-
thecated and thereby the whole sale was vitiated. 
HELD : (i) The sale of the survey numbers which were hvoothecated 
to the Government was not vitiated by the mere fact that the 
survev 
numhers relatin~ thereto wPre wronl.!1v mentioned. 
Tt wali onlv a case of 
misdescription and their identity was never in doubt. [634 C-El 
Sheodhvan Sln~h v. Muhammat Kuer fl 962] 2 S.C.R. 753 and Thakur 
Barhma v. Jiban Ram Marwarl (1913) LR. 41 I.A. 38, applied. 
(ii) There was no material to show that the nrooertv was ever \oaiued 
at more than Rs. 30 000. 
Consirlerin~ the fact that the plots in auestion 
were mortgaged the price for which they were sold was "ot low. [634 Hl 
(iii) The coint that the dues under the hond could not be recovered 
. as arrears of land revenue was not raised at anv earlier otaqe, 
The coun 
could not set a•ide the sale on this ~ound because if it had been raised 
earlier the GoYernm•nt may well have relied on the power of sale ·jtiven 
under the bond. The fact that the sale took place under Ilic machinery 
provided by the Revenue Recovery Regulation and not under any ad hoc 
machinery set up by the Government could 11ot vitiate the sale. [635 OJ 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] 1 S.C.R. 
· (iv) However, the appeal haJ to be allowed and sale set aside on the 
A 
ground that the bonds did not give power to the Government to sell the 
properties other than those m !ntioncd ·in the bonds. 
All the propcrtics-
those hypothecated and those not 
hypothecateJ-werc sold in one 
lot. 
This vitiated the sale and the Coun had no option but to declare the sale 
of alt the properties voiJ. (6J6 A-BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 542 of 
R 
1967. 
. 
. 
. 
-
.. 
Appeal from the judgmeni and decree dated January 24. I 964 
of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No. 368 of 1959. 
M. C. Chagla, Ganpat Rai anti M(l1111el T. Paikedc1,\', for the 
appellant. 
c 
A. R. Somanatha Iyer, 
N.' Narayanaswwni, 
K. N. Bhat and 
M. R. K. Pillai, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J, 
This appeal by certificate 
granted by the 
High 
Court ~f Kerala is directed against its judgment and decree revers-
ing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court -imd dismissing the 
suit of the original plaintiff, appellant before U!;. 
The relevant 
facts for determining the points raised before us by Mr. Chagla. 
learned counsel for the appellant, are as follows. 
· · On December 5, 193 L the plaintiff
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.