Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8894 Ker
Judgement Date : 7 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
RFA (INDIGENT) NO. 137 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.09.2019 IN OS 362/2012 OF SUB
COURT, NEYYATTINKARA
APPELLANT/(PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT):
1 JAYANANDAKUMAR
AGED 60 YEARS
SON OF KESAVAN NADAR, KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, KANJIRAMKULAM,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695524
BY ADVS.
S.VINOD BHAT
ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
GREESHMA CHANDRIKA R.
RESPONDENTS/(DEFENDANTS IN THE SUIT):
1 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THRISSUR 680020
2 DEPUTY COLLECTOR(RR)
KERALA FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., THRISSUR 680020
3 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)
KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, SILVER JUBILEE BUILDINGS, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695039
4 THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., ULLOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695011
5 DR. MELVIN JOSEPH
KINGINI
KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695524
6 DR. ANU.V.V.KINGINI
KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695524
7 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695043
BY ADVS.
SRI. K.DENNY DEVASSY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3
SRI. SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD. FOR R1 & R4
SRI. R.S.KALKURA FOR R5 & R6
RFA (INDIGENT) No.137 of 2021
2
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA (INDIGENT) No.137 of 2021
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2022
A suit for declaration that the hire
purchase agreement entered into by the
plaintiff with the competent authority and to
set aside the revenue sale conducted for the
recovery of the amount due was dismissed by
the trial court against which the plaintiff
came up. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the
defaulter for the amount under which the
revenue recovery proceedings were initiated
and revenue sale was conducted. A subsequent
suit for declaration challenging the revenue
sale conducted under the provisions of the
Revenue Recovery Act would stand barred by
Section 72 after the amendment of the year
2007. Every question falling under the
provisions or exercise of the jurisdiction by
the competent authority under the Revenue
Recovery Act has to be agitated in terms of
the provision contained in the Act. The RFA (INDIGENT) No.137 of 2021
learned Counsel for the appellant fairly
submitted that Section 81 is an exception
subject to Section 72 of the Act. But Section
81 is dealing with an "aggrieved person" which
stands for not the defaulter but a stranger
or a person having interest on the subject or
otherwise. A defaulter or person litigating
under the defaulter will not come under the
scope and ambit of Section 81 of the Act.
The appeal fails and hence, dismissed.
Recover the entire court fee payable from the
appellant by issuing a copy of decree to the
District Collector under Order 33 Rule 14
C.P.C.
Sd/-
P. SOMARAJAN
JUDGE SKP/7-7 RFA (INDIGENT) No.137 of 2021
APPENDIX OF RFA NO.137 OF 2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: NIL
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 34118 OF 2008 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S. 541 OF 2015 DATED 15.02.2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NEYYATTINKARA TRUE COPY
P.A.TO JUDGE
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!