Appeal No 542 of 1967
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 24 1964 of the Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No 368 of 1959
Manual T Paikeday SK Sabharwal and Ganpat Rai for the appellant
A R Somanatha Iyer and M R K Pillai for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri CJ
By judgment dated May 26 1970 this Court Sikri J as he then was and Ray J allowed Civil Appeal No 542 of 1967 set aside the judgment of the High Court and passed a decree in favour of the appellant after modifying the decree passed by the Trial Court
The respondent subsequently filed Review Petition No 35 of 1970 for review on the ground that they had failed to 978 bring to the notice of the Court the provisions of Travancore Regulation IX of 1094 and the fact that the loans were
granted under the above Regulation
We allowed review on February 1 1971
This judgment is however in continuation of our earlier judgment dated May 26 1970 The only new point which needs discussion is the effect of the provisions of Travancore Regulation IX of 1094 on our conclusion on the fourth point in that judgment
We had inter alia held that the fourth point raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is fatal for the respondent
 We observed that the bonds do not give power to the Government to sell the properties other than mentioned in the bond
The properties mentioned in plaint A schedule items 2 to 5 B Schedule items 1 and 3 to 8 and C schedule items were not given as security under the bond and the Government had no authority to sell them
It is conceded on behalf of the respondent that all the properties were sold in one lot
This in our opinion  vitiates that the sale of all the properties was void
 The fourth point raised before us was that the Government had no authority to attach and sell plaint A schedule items 2 to 5 and B schedule items 1 and 3 to 8 and C schedule items which were not given as security under the bonds and if the Government had no authority then the sale of all the properties is void
 We had while dealing with the third ground also observed that no other regulation has been brought to our notice which makes dues under this bond to be recoverable as arrears of public or land revenue
 It now transpires that Regulation IX of 1094 Travancore Land Improvement  Agricultural Loans Regulation provides for recovery of land improvement loans from the borrower as if they were arrears of land revenue due by him
Section 7 of the above Regulation provides 7
1 Subject to such Rules as may be made under Section 10 all loans granted under this Regulation all interests if any chargeable thereon and costs if any incurred in making the same shall when they become due be recoverable in any of the following modes  a from the borrower as if they were arrears of land revenue due by him b from his surety if any as if they were arrears of land revenue due by him c except as regards the loans referred to in Section 4 out of the land for the benefit of which 979 the loan has been granted as if they were arrears of land revenue due in respect of that land d out of the property comprised in the collateral security according to the procedure for the realisation of land revenue by sale of immovable property other than the land on which the revenue is due  Provided that no proceeding in respect of any land under Clause c shall affect any interest in that land which existed before the date of the order granting the loan other than the interest of the borrower and of mortgagees of or persons having cha rges on that interest and where the loan is granted under Section 3 with the consent of another person the interest of that person and of mortgagees of or persons having charges on that interest
2 When any sum due on account of any such interests or costs is paid by a surety or an owner of property comprised in any collateral security or recovered from a surety or out of any such property such sum shall on the application of the surety or the owner of such property be recovered on his behalf from the borrower or out of the land for the benefit of which the loan has been granted in manner provided in this Section
 From these provisions it is quite clear that the loans granted under the Regulation interest and charges etc can be recovered in any or all of the four modes described in the section
They can be recovered from the borrower under clause a they can be recovered from recovered from a surety under clause b the land for the benefit of which the loan had been granted can be proceeded against under clause c  and under clause d property comprised in the collateral security can be proceeded against
The fact that the properties which had been sold were not mentioned in the bond as collateral security or were not expressly hypothecated does not make any difference because the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act 1 of 1068 provides under section 5 that when Public Revenue due on land may be in arrear such arrear together with interest if any and costs of process
may be recovered by the sale of the defaulter s movable or immovable property or both in the manner hereinafter provided
 The learned counsel for the appellant contends that neither the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act 1 of 1068 nor the Land improvement and Agricultural Loans Regulation IX of 1094 and 980 the rules made thereunder confer any power or jurisdiction on the State Government or its officers to sell through the machinery of the Revenue Recovery Act any other property of the borrower than what he has specifically given by his bond as security for the loan
It is further contended that the borrower does not incur any personal liability
unless he has specifically so covenanted in the bond and hence the sale of all the 12 out of the 13 items of land sold one item alone having been a security property under the loan agreement was unauthorised illegal and void
We are unable to agree with this contention
It is not necessary for the borrower to specifically so convenant in his bond that he would be personally liable because section 7 1  a of Regulation IX of 1094 makes the borrower personally liable
This is also made clear by sub section
Under sub section 2 if a surety pays the loan he can request that the money be recovered from the borrower on his behalf
The learned counsel relied on the decision in Ulahannan Quseph vs Koohitti Kochukiimari1 where reference was made to an earlier judgment in the Dewan of Travancore vs Eravi Narayanan2 in which it was held that though under section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Regulation moneys due to Government under written agreements and all sums declared by other Regulations to be realisable as arrears of public revenue may be recovered under this Regulation that section only makes the machinery or procedure prescribed in the Regulation applicable to such cases and it would not follow that the incidents of a Revenue sale held under section 39 would also attach to sales held under the authority conferred by the provisions of section 59
 The Court held that the property in the case remained subject to the plaintiff s prior charge
We are unable to appreciate how this case assists us on the question whether there is any personal liability of the appellant or not
The learned counsel also due our attention to Birendra Nath Raha vs Mir Mahabubar Rahaman 3
In this case it was held that according to the provisions of the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act 1868 the properties in question could not be sold because they were neither an estate nor a tenure within section 5 of the Act
No such question arises in this case but it may be mentioned that at page 336 the Court interprated cl
a of section 7 of the Land Improvement Loans Act to mean that it imposed a personal liability on the borrower
1  54
2 29 Travancore Law Reports 37
3 AIR 1947 Cal
981 There is however authority against the contentions of the appellant
The Madras High Court observed in Gonjalada Bhojarajappa vs Korlahalli Halappa1 as follows  It is clear from section 5 Revenue Recovery Act that for the recovery of a loan advanced under the Agriculturists Loans Act it is open to the Collector to sell any part of the immovable property belonging to the defaulter and the remedy is not confined to that particular property in respect of which or for whose improvement the loan had been taken
 It may be noted that Section 5 of the  provides  Every loan made in accordance with such rul es all interest if any chargeable thereon and costs if any incurred in making or recovering the same shall when they become due be recoverable from the person to whom the loan was made or from any person who has become surety for the repayment thereo f as if they were arrears of land revenue or costs incurred in recovering the same due by the persons to whom the loan was made or by his surety In interpreting this section the Madras High Court in the above mentioned case clearly held that it was open to the Collector to sell any part of the immovable property belonging to the defaulter and the remedy was not confined to that particular property in respect of which or for whose improvement the loan had been taken
We may also mention that in Lakshman Venkatesh Naik vs Secretary of State2 while dealing with section 7 of the  which is in terms similar to sec
7 of Travancore Regulation IX of 1094 it was observed that it was therefore open to the Collector to adopt all or any of the four different methods which the Section provides for the recovery of the taqavi arrears
 In the result the appeal is dismissed
The parties will bear their own costs throughout
Our order dated February 1 1971 awarding Rs 1500 to the appellant as thrown away costs shall however stand
KBN Appeal dismissed
1 AIR 1946 Mad 226
2 AIR 1939 Bom


Summary:
The loans granted under the Travancore Land Improvement and Agricultural Loans Regulation IX of 1094 together with interest and charges etc
can be recovered from the borrowers under cl
a of section 71 of the Regulation as arrears of land revenue due by him or in any of the other modes prescribed by cls
b c and d of the section
The fact that the properties which had been sold were not mentioned in the bond as collateral security or were not expressly hypothecated does not make any difference because Travancore Revenue Recovery Act 1 of 1068 ME provides under section 5 when public revenue due on loan may be in arrear such arrear together with interest if any and cost and process may be recovered by the sale of the defaulter s movable or immovable property or both in the manner hereinafter provided Further it is not necessary for the borrower to specifically so covenant in his bond that he would be personally liable because section 71 a of the Regulation makes the borrower personally liable
This is also made clear by sub section
2 under which if a surety pays the loan he can request that the money be recovered from the borrower on his behalf
979 F Ulahannan Quseph vs Koohitti Kochukumari 23 Tr
L J 1051 54 and Birendra Nath Raha vs Mir Mahabubar Rahaman AIR 1947 Cal
332 held inapplicable Gonjalada Bhojarajappa vs Korlahalli Halappa AIR 1946 Mad 226 Lakshman Venkatesh Naik vs Secretary of State AIR 1939 Bom
183 Hand Birendra Nath Raha vs Mir Mahabubar Rahman AIR 1947 Cal
332 referred to