Dismissed

V.C. Jacob v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Apr 2012RSA/492/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this regular second appeal, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the appeal filed by a successful bidder in a forest auction against the dismissal of his suit for a prohibitory injunction against recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. The bench held that the plea of no means is insufficient to avoid arrest under the Act and found that the issue of liability to pay was not for adjudi

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; all pending interlocutory applications dismissed.

V.C. Jacob Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2012/14TH CHAITHRA 1934

¶5

RSA.No. 492 of 2012 ()

¶6

AS.302/2008 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,PALAKKAD OS.498/2007 OF ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

V.C. JACOB

¶9

S/O.CHACKO, KALLUNGAL HOUSE, KALKANDI P.O. MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REP.BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.

¶14

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD.

¶15

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

tss

¶17

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶18

R.S.A. No.492 of 2012

¶19

Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2012.

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Plaintiff in O.S.No.498 of 2007 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Palakkad is aggrieved by the dismissal of that suit, confirmed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Palakkad in A.S.No.302 of 2008.

¶22

Appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for a decree for prohibitory injunction against proceeding under the Revenue Recovery Act (for short, “the Act”) initiated by the respondents for recovery of `2,00,612/- with interest.

¶23

Appellant had participated in the auction held by the Forest Department (which is not made a party in the suit) and was the successful bidder. He deposited `32,400/- in accordance with the auction notice. He claims that he could not pay the balance amount and take delivery of the auctioned timber. The Forest Department issued notice to the appellant informing him that the timber got decayed and fixed liability on the appellant. In the meantime a reauction was conducted at the risk of appellant. Appellant addressed a letter to the District Collector informing that he has no means to pay the amount but, in spite of that respondents initiated proceeding against him under the Act. Hence the suit.

¶24

Respondents contended that appellant is liable to pay `2,00,612/with interest as claimed in the demand notice. They also contended that

¶25

¶26

RSA No.492/2012

¶27

appellant had approached this Court and obtained an order avoiding arrest on condition of deposit of `50,000/- to avoid arrest. But that condition was not complied.

¶28

Trial court found that the suit is barred by Sec.72 of the Act. Trial court also found that contention of appellant that he has no mens is not sufficient to ward off arrest under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. That has been confirmed by the first appellate court.

¶29

Though it is contended by the learned counsel that though proceeding initiated against him are illegal, no illegality is brought to my notice. Moreover the question whether appellant is liable to pay any amount to the Forest Department is not a matter which is required to be adjudicated i n this suit since the Forest Department is not a party. Respondents are entitled to initiate recovery proceedings for realisation of the amount due. Courts below have referred to the decision in Aboo v. District Collector(2000(1) KLT 843) to hold that a plea of no means raised by the appellant is not sufficient to escape and avoid arrest under the Act. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal requiring its admission.

¶30

Second Appeal is dismissed.

¶31

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶32

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

¶33

cks

V.C. Jacob v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.C. Jacob v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wilson Vs Cherian

Geetha Raju Vs the Secretary, the Kerala State Electricity Board

K.M.Kousllya Vs P.Suresh

Chathoth Mosa Haji Vs Nedumpurath Meethal Hamsa Haji

Subramanian Vs Vasu

Edward Sirling Vs Gracy