IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 SA.No. 31 of 1998(D) -------------------------- AS.103/1992 of II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.1016/1986 of II ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S):APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------------- CHANDRAHASAN, S/O.THONGAMOOCHI VELAYUDHAN, THANIKUDAM, KURIACHIRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THRISSUR. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.R.JAYA KRISHNAN THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.520/2001 IN S.A. NO. 31/1998 DISMISSED 23/05/2011 SD/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- S.A.No. 31 of 1998 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Faced with the concurrent findings against him, the appellant in O.S.No.1016 of 1986 before the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur has come up before this Court. 2. It appears that the Revenue Recovery Proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff for the tax arrears due to the stage carriage bearing Registration No.KLF 3347. According to the plaintiff, the vehicle belongs to one Ramaswamy and he had never been the owner in possession of the vehicle. It is true that he had paid some amounts to Ramaswamy for the purchase of the vehicle but the transaction did not come through. Therefore, he alleged that he was not liable to pay the tax due on the vehicle. 3. The defendants resisted the suit by pointing out that going by the records available, the vehicle has been transferred to the plaintiff and tax arrears claim was for the period during which according to the records, the plaintiff was the owner of the vehicle. They also contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of S.A.No. 31 of 1998 2 Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act. They, therefore, prayed for a dismissal of the suit. 4. Based on the above pleadings, necessary issues were raised by the trial court. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and documents marked as Exts. A1 to A8 from the side of the plaintiff. The trial court on the basis of Section 41 of the Specific Reliefs Act, noticed that an alternative efficacious remedy is available, dismissed the suit. The trial court also opined that the burden cast on the plaintiff has also not been discharged. 5. Disappointed plaintiff took up the matter in appeal as A.S.No.103 of 1992 before the District Court, Thrissur. The appellate court found that going by the available materials plaintiff was successful in showing that he was not an owner of the vehicle, but in the light of the fact that alternate efficacious remedy is available to him confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. 6. Notice is seen issued on the following substantial questions of law : S.A.No. 31 of 1998 3 1. Whether or not the Lower Appellate Court was right in dismissing the appeal on the ground of existence of alternate remedy when it was specifically pleaded that Ramaswamy by manipulating records had misrepresented to the authorities that the vehicle had been transferred to the appellant, which plea was found to be correct by the Appellate Court. 2. Whether or not the Revenue Recovery Act provides an equal right by way of suit for a party who is aggrieved by any action taken under the Revenue Recovery Act. 7. The view taken by the courts below cannot be faulted. Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act as it then stood precluded any suit being filed except on allegation of fraud. Both the courts below found that there was no allegation of any fraud having been played or any proof thereof. No grounds are made out to interfere with the judgments and decrees of the courts below. The result is that the Second Appeal is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln