Chittiraivel Nadar and others vs Mookandi Nadar

K. Govindarajan, J.—The respondent was owner of property in question towards 1/2 share. Towards arrears of tax his 1/2 share was

brought for sale under the Revenue Recovery Act. The first petitioner purchased half share in the property in question in the said proceedings. On

26.11.1980 he was issued sale certificate. He sold the same on 25.11.1990 to the second petitioner for a sum of Rs. 65,000. On the basis of the

sale certificate, the petitioners filed E.P.No.64 of 1991 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, to execute the same, relying on

Section 40 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. The trial court rejected the petition on the ground that under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, the

petition ought to have been filed within one year from the date of purchase. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed the above

Revision.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied on Section 40 of the Revenue Recovery Act and submitted that the first petitioner

should be treated as a decree holder and the sale in his favour under the Revenue Recovery Proceedings should be treated as a decree and that

therefore the petitioners are entitled to file Execution Petition within 12 years from the date of the sale.

Section 40 of the said Act reads as follows:-

Delivery of possession:- Where, notwithstanding such publication, any lawful purchaser of land may be resisted and prevented from obtaining

possession of his purchased land, any Court of competent jurisdiction, on application and production of certificate of sale provided for by Section

38, shall cause the proper process to be issued for the purpose of putting such purchaser in possession in the same manner as if the purchased

lands had been decreed to the purchaser by a decision of the Court"".

Section 40 of the said Act empowers a Court of competent jurisdiction, on application and production of certificate of sale provided for by

Section 38 of the said Act shall cause the proper process to be issued for the purpose of putting the purchaser in possession in the same manner as

if the purchased land had been decreed to the purchaser by a decision of the court. That Section places the purchaser in the position of a decree

holder for the purpose of putting the machinery of the court in motion in order to get possession of the property on the basis of the certificate sale

granted by the revenue authorities may given effect to.

Article 134 of the Limitation Act applies to decrees or orders of a Civil Court, and even if the grant of a certificate by the revenue authority can

be regarded as a decree or order only for the purposes of Section 40 of the said Act. It cannot be said that the same can be regarded as a decree

or order of a Civil Court for all the purposes. Section 40 does not, by implication, make the law of limitation with reference to the execution of

decree or orders of Civil Courts applicable to processes under the said Act. So, the trial court has rightly rejected the Execution Petition holding

that Article 134 cannot be made applicable to execute the sale certificate issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.

In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the case of the petitioners with respect to the petition. I do not find any irregularity or

illegality in the order of the trial court. Accordingly this Revision is dismissed. No costs.