This appeal challenged a dismissal of a suit seeking permanent injunction against revenue recovery proceedings. The court held that Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 expressly bars civil court jurisdiction absent an allegation of fraud, rendering the suit unmaintainable.
The appeal was dismissed. No order as to 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 P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1940
RSA.No. 727 of 2003
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17-12-2002 IN AS 10/2002 of ADDL. SUB COURT,THALASSERY
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09-11-2001 IN OS 76/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
P.PADMINI,
D/O.KRISHNA PILLA, RESIDING AT ERANHOLI AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SRI.B.PREMNATH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 THE REVENUE RECOVERY TAHSILDAR THALASSERY.
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.MADHU
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA.No. 727 of 2003 2
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the concurrent finding rendered by
both the Trial Court (Munsiff's Court, Thalassery) in O.S.No.76/1997 and the First Appellate Court (Addl.Sub Court, Thalassery) in A.S.NO.10/2002, in dismissing a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against Revenue Recovery proceedings, the defeated plaintiff came up with this appeal.
to issuance of a demand notice under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act. The revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the daughter of plaintiff, one Pushpalatha. She was granted with a loan facility under the self employment scheme from Syndicate Bank and for recovery of the said amount, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against
the daughter of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is registered owner of the property and according to her, she had put up a house in the property and the movables kept in the building is belong to her and hence the suit.
RSA.No. 727 of 2003 3
and the suit is against revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount due. Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 as stood before its amendment, debars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court specifically and expressly unless fraud is alleged.
No fraud was alleged anywhere in the plaint and no case of fraud was also mentioned in the plaint. As such, since there is an express bar under Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 the suit is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as there is an express bar. The learned counsel for the appellant took reliance on the decision drawn by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Meghraj Gayatri Devi v. Jetling Rajeshwar (2001(3)CCC 84 (A.P) in support of his argument that
there is nothing wrong to presume that when a person is stated to be in possession of a residential house,
he shall be deemed to be in possession of all the movables in relation to the house as well as the
immovable attached. But, that question cannot be inquired into or decided or adjudicated in the present suit as there is an express bar under Section
RSA.No. 727 of 2003 4
72 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Hence, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant will not render any assistance to their case. In fact
the above said decision and the legal position settled therein stand against the plaintiff as her daughter who is the defaulter had applied for getting loan under self employment scheme before her marriage, while she was residing along with her
mother in the said house and she was the resident of the said house. The loan was obtained in her said residential address. The concurrent finding rendered by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court hence deserves no interference by this Court. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. I do so. But without ordering cost.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
msp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against revenue recovery proceedings is maintainable in the absence of an allegation of fraud?
Whether Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court when no fraud is alleged?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Meghraj Gayatri Devi v. Jetling RajeshwarDistinguished¶28
Meghraj Gayatri Devi v. Jetling Rajeshwar (2001(3)CCC 84 (A.P))
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. PADMINI
THE REVENUE RECOVERY TAHSILDAR THALASSERY
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR
P. SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
