IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2010 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1932 RSA.No. 1130 of 2010() ---------------------- AS.167/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.910/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------- T.C.ALBERT, AGED 54, S/O. THALAKOTTURU CHERU, VAILATHOOR AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------- 1. THE GOVT. OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), TALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKKANCHERY. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- R.S.A No.1130 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October 2010 JUDGMENT Concurrent decision rendered by the two courts below dismissing a suit for injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff as against the State and some public officials to restrain them from initiating Revenue Recovery proceedings against the properties scheduled in the suit, is challenged in this appeal. The movable items in a photo studio, which, admittedly, were operated previously by one Rajan were sought to be proceeded against under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the sales tax arrears due to the State. Appellant/plaintiff, contending that he is in occupation of the photo studio and his rights over the same are not under the defaulter Rajan, laid the suit for a perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from proceeding against the movable items kept in the studio. On the materials placed, the trial court came to the conclusion that the claim of the plaintiff is only under that of a defaulter, and as such, he has no right to get the discretionary relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction against the defendants. Challenge against the decision of the trial court dismissing his suit by way of an appeal by the plaintiff was turned down by the lower appellate court concurring with the conclusion drawn by the trial court, after reappreciating R.S.A No.1130 OF 2010 - 2 - the materials tendered in the case. Plaintiff has approached this court with the Second Appeal impeaching the correctness of the concurrent decision so rendered by the two courts. The learned counsel for the appellant inviting my attention to the judgment rendered by both the courts contended that the case set up by the appellant/plaintiff that his claim was not under the defaulter, but, he has an independent right over the movables kept in the photo studio, on the materials placed was not properly appreciated by the courts below and that resulted in forming a wrong conclusion resulting dismissal of the suit. After going through the judgment rendered by the courts below with reference to the relevant provisions covered by the Revenue Recovery Act, I find no impropriety or illegality or infirmity, whatsoever, in the conclusion drawn by both the courts concurrently that the discretionary relief of injunction canvassed by the plaintiff was not available to him. Revenue Recovery proceedings were initiated in respect of sales tax arrears due from the previous proprietor of the photo studio and no doubt, it was recoverable as arrear of public revenue due on land by resort to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Perusing the materials tendered by the plaintiff, it is seen, other than producing two receipts, that too long after the default was R.S.A No.1130 OF 2010 - 3 - committed in payment of sales tax arrears by the previous proprietor, and also a copy of the demand notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, no material, whatsoever, was placed by the plaintiff to show that he has any independent right over the movables and photo studio otherwise than under the defaulter. When such be the case, having regard to the remedies provided under the Revenue Recovery Act to agitate his claim, if any and bar under Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act prohibiting the civil court from examining any matter relating discharge, satisfaction and execution over the recovery proceedings initiated against a defaulter or his representative under the Act, I find, the dismissal of the suit by the trial court which was confirmed by the lower appellate court does not suffer from any infirmity. There is no question of law leave alone any substantial question of law in the appeal, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv