IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 EFA.No. 51 of 2001(Y) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/06/2000 IN E.A.NO.79/96, E.P.NO.186/89, O.S.NO.3/1987 SUB COURT MAVELIKARA ----------------- APPELLANT(S): ----------------------- LIOYD ALEXANDER, KATTIL VADAKKEDATHU, VAZHUVADI MURI, THAZHAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK. 2. P.K.THYAGARAJAN, THAYYIL VEEDU, THAZHAKKARA.P.O. * ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED * ADDLR3: THE STATE OF KERALA ADDLR3 IMPLEADED AS PER HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 7/12/06 R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN SRI. JOSE THETTAYIL THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN,JJ ----------------------------------- EFA.No. 51 of 2001 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 05th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J. This appeal is against the order refusing to answer a claim. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant is right in pointing out that the claim is not answered on merit. 2. The decree put in execution is a charge decree. Therefore, the claim petition would not lie. This view of the Court below is in accordance with law. 3. Yet, we look into the claim of title as projected by the appellant/ claim petitioner. 4. The suit is filed in the year 1987. That was decreed some time before or in 1989. We say so because the execution petition is filed in 1989. The EFA.No. 51 of 2001 2 claim of the appellant is that he purchased the property in a revenue sale on 20.04.1992. He therefore, claimed that such sale is free of all encumbrance in terms of Section 3 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. Section 3 of that Act provides that the public revenue due on any land shall be the first charge on that land, the buildings upon it and on the produce thereof. “ Public revenue due on land” defined under Section 2(j) of that Act means “the land revenue charge on the land and includes all other taxes, fees and cesses on land, whether charged on land or not and all cesses or other dues payable to the Government on account of water used for purpose of irrigation”. Clause (a) of Section 2 defines “ arrear of public revenue due on land” as meaning “the whole or any portion of any kist or instalment of such revenue not paid on the day on which it falls due according to the kistbandy EFA.No. 51 of 2001 3 or any engagement or usage”. The appellant did not plead before the Court below or before us as to whether the revenue sale he relies upon is referable to any of the aforesaid clauses. On query, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly stated that it relates to some claim under contracts. Whatever that be, the revenue sale was long after the charge in terms of a mortgage and which fructified into a decree sometime in 1988-1989. We therefore do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order even going by the merits of the contentions of the appellant, making reference to the title held out by him. In the result this appeal fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE. rkc