The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal not pressed against a decree for refund of seigniorage dated over 12 years ago, noting that the right to realise usufructs was barred by limitation.
The appeal was dismissed as not pressed, without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932
AS.No. 707 of 1998()
-----------------------------OS.106/1982 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): ----------------------
TATA TEA LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS MANAGER- FINANCE SRI.A.MITRA.
BY SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.
2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, KERALA STATE, TRIVANDRUM.
3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUNNAR DIVISION , DEVIKULAM P.O.
SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.PRAKASH
THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. NO. 707 OF 1998 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the
judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Thodupuzha in O.S.106/82. The suit was one for refund of seigniorage collected by the defendants. The trial Court granted a decree for Rs.39,150/- with interest. The trial Court also held that the defendant is not entitled to levy kuttikanam on the Eucalyptus trees. It is fairly submitted before me by the learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divisional Forest Officer & others v. Tata Finlay Ltd. And others (2001 (5) SCC 684) that the Apex Court has held that it is leviable. Therefore in the light of that the plaintiff is
A.S. 707 OF 1998
-2-
not entitled to the relief really. But I find a situation where the Government has not challenged the matter in appeal. Whatever it may be, one is bound by law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is also seen that the decree is passed more than 12 years ago and it is barred by limitation. So it is clear that the plaintiff may not be entitled to realise the usufructs of the decree. It is also submitted that the appeal is not pressed. Therefore the appeal is dismissed as not pressed but without costs.
Sd/-
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-
[true copy]
P.A. To Judge.
A.S. 707 OF 1998
-3-
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = A.S. No.707 OF 1998
= = = = = = = = = = =
J U D G M E N T
6th August, 2010.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Divisional Forest Officer & others v. Tata Finlay Ltd. And othersReferred¶21
Divisional Forest Officer & others v. Tata Finlay Ltd. And others (2001 (5) SCC 684) · Who else cites this
Tata Tea Limited, Regional Office, Munnar, Idukki District, Rep. by its Manager-Finance Sri.A.Mitra
The State of Kerala, Rep. by the Chief Secretary to the Government
The Chief Conservator of Forests, Kerala State
The Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar Division
M.N. Krishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
