IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 AS.No. 958 of 1996() -------------------- OS.103/1995 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S)/PLAINTIFF: -------------- S.CHINNASWAMY, S/O.SUBBAYYA BOYAN, P.W.D.CONTRACTOR, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.21A, JAYAPRAKASH STREET, P.O.KOTTUR, MALAYANDIPATTANAM, POLLACHI TALUK, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD, SRI JOJI VARGHESE, SRI.HARI SHARMA.M. RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D.LOCAL WORK DIVISION, PALAKKAD 678 014. 3. SREE KUMAR, S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LOCAL WORK SECTION OFFICE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, CHITTUR, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, POLLACHI, TAMIL NADU. ADV. SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL FOR R1 & R2 0 THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.3.2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.R. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- A.S.No.958 of 1996 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Appellant/plaintiff challenges dismissal of the suit for a declaration that he is not liable to pay the amount demanded by respondent No.5, Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery) pursuant to notice No.NK.20624/94-A dated 12/1994 or any other amount to the respondents and a consequential injunction to restrain the respondents from recovering such amount from him pursuant to the said notice. 2. Appellant is an A class PWD contractor. It is not disputed that he was entrusted with the work of two units of quarters, one for Deputy Range Officer, Thekkady and the other, for the Forest Guards, Thekkady as per separate agreements. Building materials such as cement and steel were entrusted to the appellant on 26.9.1987. Appellant states that though he had constructed the quarters for Deputy Range Officer partly, it could not be completed as the respondents did not provide him with route permit for transportation of cement and steel through forest area and hence he surrendered building materials to respondent No.3 as per Ext.A1, letter dated 28.9.1989. On 15.10.1993 appellant got a letter from respondent No.2 directing him to return the materials or remit its value. Thereon appellant issued notice to respondent No.3 on 8.9.1993 to return such materials or to pay the amount. AS No.958/1996 2 Respondent No.3 refuted his liability and hence the suit. Respondents contended that there was no negligence on their part, whatever were required to be done on their part had been done and that it was the negligence of the appellant which resulted in the work not being completed. They also contended that it was the responsibility of the appellant to obtain necessary route permit for transporting building materials to the work site. It is incorrect to say that the materials were returned to respondent No.3. Appellant gave only an information regarding storage of the materials in his custody. Appellant was directed to hand over the duplicate key of the place where the materials were stocked and to comply with Store Rules as per Government Order but he failed to do so. Hence, revenue recovery was advised for realisation of Rs.84,436/- being the value of building materials from the appellant. It is also contended that since there is no allegation of fraud in the plaint, suit is not maintainable under Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act (for short, “the Act”). Learned Sub Judge framed issue whether suit is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act and whether appellant is liable to pay the sum of Rs.84,436/- as per demand made by respondent No.5. Learned Sub Judge found that in the absence of allegation of fraud in the plaint and much less evidence, suit is hit by Section 72 of the Act. On the issue regarding liability of the appellant to pay the amount, AS No.958/1996 3 learned Sub Judge found that there is no evidence to show that building materials were returned to respondent No.3 as claimed by the appellant and consequently dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal. 3. Following questions arise for a decision: I. Whether finding of the learned Sub Judge as to maintainability of the suit is correct? II. Whether appellant is entitled to the relief prayed for? 4. Point No.I: It is relying on Section 72 of the Act that respondents contended that in the absence of specific allegation of fraud, suit is not maintainable. Learned counsel for appellant contended that on the facts of the case and in the nature of reliefs claimed, Section 72 of the Act has no application. At any rate, there are sufficient averments in the plaint regarding fraud and hence the suit is saved by the proviso to Section 72. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents contended that though there is a one line statement in paragraph 5 of the plaint that there was fraud on the part of respondent No.3, particulars of such fraud as required under the provisions of AS No.958/1996 4 Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) are not given in the plaint and hence the one line statement in paragraph 5 of the plaint is not sufficient to bring the suit within the mischief of the proviso to Section 72. 5. Section.72 of the Act states that except as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, all questions arising between the Collector or the authorised officer and the defaulter or his representative or any other person claiming any right through the defaulter relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of a written demand issued under the Act or relating to the confirmation or setting aside of an order of sale held in execution of such demand shall be determined not by suit but by order of Board of Revenue or the Collector. Proviso to Section 72 states that a suit may be brought in a civil court in respect of any such question on the ground of fraud. 6. The first question that arises for a decision is whether the suit comes within the mischief of the earlier part of Section 72 of the Act. In this case, appellant disputed his liability to pay any amount as per demand notice issued by respondent No.5 pursuant to the requisition for recovery of the amount at the instance of respondent Nos.1 to 3. According to the respondents, amount sought to be recovered from the appellant represents AS No.958/1996 5 value of building materials entrusted to the appellant. It is the contention of appellant that he has already returned the materials to respondent No.3 and hence he is not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the respondents. In short, appellant is disputing his liability to pay the amount and wanted a declaration that he is not liable to pay any amount to the respondents. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with the power of the court to grant declaration and states that the court may in its discretion grant a declaration as to any legal character, or to any right as to property. The Allahabad High Court in Mahabir Jute Mills v. Firm Kedar Nath (AIR 1960 Allahabad 254) held that a suit for declaration that a contract does not subsist and the plaintiff is not liable for its breach is not maintainable. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Khan Bahadur (AIR 1971 MP. 65) held that a suit for a declaration as to plaintiff's liability to pay only a particular sum as rent is not maintainable. The view taken in the above cases is that it is Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (corresponding to Section 34 of Act 47 of 1963) which confers power on the court to grant declaration and that the declaration prayed for did not relate to “legal status” or “right to property” as stated in Section 42. But the Supreme Court has held that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 did not exhaust the power of the court to grant declaratory reliefs. In Ashok Kumar Srivastav v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (AIR 1998 AS No.958/1996 6 SC 2046) the Supreme Court considered the question whether court could grant a declaration that termination of service is illegal. Answering the question in the affirmative, it was held that, “.......S.34 is enough to open the corridors of civil courts to admit suits filed for a variety of declaratory reliefs................ It is well to remember that even the wide language contained in S. 34 did not exhaust the powers of the court to grant declaratory reliefs.........”. It is therefore competent for the civil court to grant declaratory reliefs even beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Hence a declaration as prayed for by the appellant as to his liability to pay the amount claimed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 could be granted by the civil court. 7. Section 72 of the Act comes into operation only when a question arises between the Collector or the authorised officer and the defaulter or his representative or any other person claiming any right through the defaulter, relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of a written demand issued under the Act or relating to the confirmation or setting aside by an order issued under the Act of a sale held in execution of such demand which is required to be AS No.958/1996 7 determined by the Board of Revenue or the Collector, and not by suit. Proviso to Section 72 only saved a suit in respect of the question referred to in the earlier part of that Section which is otherwise required to be decided by the Board of Revenue or the Collector, provided such suit is brought on allegation of fraud. In this case the relief of injunction sought against recovery of the amount stated in the demand notice issued under the Act is consequential to the declaration appellant has prayed for, that he is not liable to pay any amount as he has already returned the materials to respondent No.3. Section 72 of the Act does not take away the jurisdiction of the courts to grant declaratory reliefs and consequential reliefs. The questions whether appellant has returned the materials to respondent No.3 and any amount is due from the appellant to respondent Nos.1 to 3 and whether appellant is entitled to the declaration and consequential reliefs are not matters required to be decided by the Board of Revenue or the Collector under any of the provisions of the Act. Those questions are required to be decided by a suit. If the court decides those questions in favour of the appellant, he is entitled to the consequential relief of injunction against recovery of the amount, be it under the provisions of the Act or any other mode available to the respondents. A suit for a declaration of the nature prayed for and a consequential injunction is one of a civil nature triable by the civil court. That jurisdiction is not expressly or impliedly barred by the AS No.958/1996 8 provisions of the Act. In that view, Section 72 of the Act has no application to the facts of this case. Learned Sub Judge was not correct in holding that the suit is not maintainable for want of sufficient pleadings as to fraud to bring the suit within the scope of the proviso to Section 72 of the Act. I hold that the suit is maintainable in the civil court. 8. Point No.II: Next question is whether appellant is entitled to a declaration as prayed for. Allegations made by the appellant and the counter allegations made by the respondents which are not necessary for deciding the point involved in this case excluded, the only question is whether the building materials collected by the appellant from respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 26.9.1987 had been surrendered to respondent No.3 as claimed by the appellant as per Ext.A1, letter dated 28.9.1989. If the materials had been surrendered as claimed by the appellant, he cannot be asked to pay the value of those materials. Appellant stated as PW1 that he returned the materials to respondent No.3 as per Ext.A1. But he would admit that apart from Ext.A1 and the endorsement on it (Ext.A1(a)) made by respondent No.3, there is no other material with him to substantiate that claim of his. In Ext.A1, copy of the letter dated 28.9.1989 addressed to respondent No.3, appellant states that it is difficult for him to take the building materials to the work site and hence AS No.958/1996 9 respondent No.3 is informed that the materials have been stocked in the building owned by one Balakrishnan, Baby Vihar, Kumankattil and at Kittaman Kovil, the place of stay of the appellant. As per Ext.A1(a), respondent No.3 endorsed that appellant should handover the duplicate key (of the building where as per Ext.A1, the materials are said to be stocked) to the Work Superintendent concerned and that the appellant should follow the Stores Rules as per the Government Order. There is no case and much less evidence to show that the direction contained in Ext.A1(a) was complied with by the appellant. Interpreting Exts.A1 and A1(a), learned Sub Judge found that it is not as if materials were surrendered to respondent No.3 but, the materials continued to be in the custody of the appellant who merely gave an intimation to respondent No.3 as to the place where he had stocked it. 9. In the course of evidence appellant developed a case that the building materials had been taken by respondent No.3 for construction of his house. On that also, appellant admitted that he has no evidence to offer. That allegation was specifically denied by respondent No.3 in his evidence as DW1. In Ext.B9, copy of letter dated 22.10.1993 sent by the appellant to the Executive Engineer, PWD what the appellant stated is that without his permission the Kerala Forester (respondent No.3 is the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD) AS No.958/1996 10 took away the remaining materials. Thus, there is no acceptable evidence to show that the materials were surrendered to the PWD through any of its officials including respondent No.3. If that be so, appellant cannot dispute his liability to pay the value of the materials to the Department. The declaration and the consequential relief of injunction prayed for were therefore, rightly disallowed by the court below. Appeal fails. It is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.5899 of 1996 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks AS No.958/1996 11 Thomas P.Joseph, J. A.S.No.958 of 1996 JUDGMENT 31st March, 2009.