LexLUKA MATHAI versus NEELAKANTA IYER SUBRAMONIA IYER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H LUKA MATHAI v. NEELAKANTA IYER SUBRAMONIA IYER October 6, 1971 977 [S. M. SIKRI, C.J., A. N. RAY AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.] Travancore Land Improvement' and Agric11/t11ral Lo1111s Regulation IX of 1094 (M.E.)-Recovery of loan. The loans granted under the Travancore Land lmprovcment and Agri~ cultural Loans Regulation IX of 1094 together with interest and charges etc. can be recovered from the horrowers under cl. (a) of s. 7( 1 J of the Regulation 1 as arrears of land revenue due by him or in any of the other modes prescribed by els. (b)., (c) and (d) of the section. The fact that the properties which had been sold were not mentioned in the bond '" collateral security or were not expressly hypothecaled docs not make any difference, because, Travancore Revenue Recovery Act I of 1068 (M.E. 'i provides under s. 5 "when public rev~nue due on loan n1ay be in <irrcar, such- arrear. together with interest if any and cost and process may be recovered hy the sale of the defaulter's movable or irnn1ovable propertv or both in the manner hereinafter provided.'. Furthe'r, it is not ncccssarY for the borrov.'er to specifically so covenant in his bond fhat he would be personally liable, because, s. 7(l)(a) of the Regulation makes the borrower pcTsonally liable. This is also made clear hy sub-s. (2) un<lcr which if a surety pays the loan he can request that the n1oney be recovered from the borrower on his behalf. [979 FJ U!ahannan Quseph v. Koohirti Kochuk11111ari, 23 Tr. l,. J. 1051, 54 and Birendra Nath Raha v. Mir Ma'1abuhar Raha11u1n, A.I.R. 1947 Cal. 332, held inapplicable. Gonja/ada Bhojarajappa v. Kor/aha/Ii Halappa, A. I. R. 1946 226, Lakshman Venkatesh Naik v .. Secretary of State A.I.R. Born. 183 and Birendra Nath Rahr. v. Mir Maliabubar Rahrna11, 1947 Cal. 332, referred to. Matf. !939 A.LR. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 542 of 1967. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 24, 1964, of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No. 368 of 1959. Manual T. Paikeday, S. K. Sabha111•a/ and Ganpat Rai, for the appella.nt. A. R. Somanatha Iyer and M. R. K. Pillai, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, C.J. By judgment dated May 26, 1970, this Court (Sikri J ., a' he then was, and Ray J.) allowed Civil Appeal No. 542 of 1967, set aside the judgment of the High Court and passed a decree m _favour of the appellant after modifying the decree passed by the Tnal Court The respondent subsequently filed Review Petition No. 35 of 1970 for review on the ground that they had failed to 978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 1 S.C.R. A bring to the notice of the Court the provisions of Travancore , Regulation IX of 1094 ·and the fact that the loans were granted under the above Regulation. We allowed review on February I, 1971. This judgment is, however, in continuation of our earlier judgment dated May 26, 1970. The only new point which needs discussion is the effect of the B provisions of Travancore Regulation IX of 1094 on our conclu- sion on the fof.!rth point in that judgment. We had inter alia held that the "fourth point raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is fatal for the respondent." We observed that "the bonds do not give power to the Government to c sell the properties other than mentioned in the bond. The pro- perties mentioned in plaint A schedule items 2 to 5, B Schedule items 1 and 3 to 8, and C schedule items were not given as secu- rity under the bond and the Government had no authority to sell them. It is conceded on behalf of the respondent that all the properties were sold in one lot. This, in our opinion, vitiates that 0 the sale of all the properties was void." The fourth point raised before us was that "the Government had no authority to attach and sell plaint A schedule items 2 to 5 and B schedule items I and 3 to 8 and C schedule items, which were not given as security under the bonds; and if the Government had no authority then the sale of all the properties is void." We had while dealing with the third ground also observed that "no other regulation has been E brought to our notice which makes dues under this bond to be recoverable as arrears of public or land revenue." It now transpires that Regulation IX of I 094-Travancore Land Improvement & Agricultural Loans Regulation-provides for recovery of land improvement loans from the borrower as if F
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.