Aratha (SIC) Nadar Velu Nadar vs Lakshmanan Nadar and Others

Sankaran, J.—Plaintiffs suit is for redemption of Ex. B, mortgage. The suit was dismissed by the lower appellate Court for the reason that the property being kandukrishi lands, the suit should have been instituted only with the sanction of Government as contemplated by Section 8, Travancore Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has come as the assignee of the registry holder of the property. But when the suit was instituted, the assignor had not been recognised in the Government revenue-accounts as the registry holder of the property. Such accounts showed that the property remained as kandukrishi land even at the time of the institution of the suit. On behalf of the Plaintiff it is contended that during the pendency of the suit Plaintiff''s assignor was recognised in the Government revenue accounts as the registry holder of the property and that this will entitle the Plaintiff to sustain the suit by virtue of the exception provided for in Section 8. The section as it stood prohibited the Court from taking cognizance of a suit in respect of kandukrishi lands without the required sanction. This means that the sanction is to accompany the plaint. It is also clear that the position of the property on the date of the suit has to be taken into account in determining the question whether the section governs the matter or not. Admittedly the Government revenue accounts treated the property in question as kandukrishi land even on the date of the suit. Plaintiff had not acquired the rights of a registry holder in respect of this property on the date of the suit, and as such the suit could not come within the exception provided for in the section. The lower appellate Court was, therefore, right in holding that the suit was unsustainable and that the subsequent change in the revenue records could not be availed of by the Plaintiff in respect of the present suit. The decree dismissing the suit does not, therefore, call for any interference. It is also clear that the Plaintiff''s right of redemption is not lost by the present decree. The mortgage has not become barred and hence he can institute a fresh suit "for redemption. Since the Travancore CPC has been superseded by the Indian CPC which contains no provision corresponding to Section 8 of the Travancore Code, there can be no difficulty for the Plaintiff to bring a fresh suit for redeeming the plaint mortgage.

In the result this appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.