IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 FAO.No. 126 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/04/2006 IN IA 1286 2005 IN OS.127/2005 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS: --------------- 1. N.U. JOHN, S/O. ULAHANNAN, NERANUMTHOTTIYIL, MARADY VILLAGE,MEENKUNNAM POST (WRONGLY SHOWN AS MEENKUNNAM VILLAGE IN THE ORDER) MEENKUNNAM. 2. MARY JOHN, W/O. JOHN, NERANUMTHOTTIYIL, MEENKUNNAM POST (WRONGLY SHOWN AS MEENKUNNAM VILLAGE IN THE ORDER), MEENKUNNAM. 3. SIBI JOHN, NERANUMTHOTTIYIL, MEENKUNNAM POST (WRONGLY SHOWN AS MEENKUNNAM VILLAGE IN THE ORDER), MEENKUNNAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH SRI.V.A.ABDUL JALEEL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- F.A.O. No.126 of 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.127 of 2005, on the file of Subordinate Judges Court, Muvattupuzha. They sought for an injunction restraining the defendants who are the State of Kerala, Tahsildar and the Village Officer, from proceeding with the property under the Revenue Recovery Act or under any other law. According to the plaintiffs, they are the absolute owners of the property, they are the bona fide purchasers and have acquired title. Along with the suit, plaintiffs have filed the present Interlocutory application, I.A.No.1286/2005, for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding against the plaint schedule property for realisation of arrears from the fourth defendant from whom the property was purchased. The court below, after considering the points involved, dismissed the application stating that the revenue FAO.No.126 of 2006 2 recovery proceedings initiated is for recovery of arrears of sales tax due and they have a got a priority in the matter of said dues under the Sales Tax Act. It is against the said order that the appeal is filed. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that this appeal has virtually become infructuous, as according to him, the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the fourth defendant against alleged sale tax arrears due has since been dropped, based on a declaration made by this Court that there is no such arrears due from the fourth defendant, as the outstanding liability has since been paid. As the recovery proceedings initiated against the fourth defendant has since been quashed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11571/2007, the appellants submit that the appeal has become infructuous. As the appellants state that they have filed a writ petition as W.P.(C) No.26138 of 2007 for lifting the attachment, FAO.No.126 of 2006 3 without prejudice to the contentions raised in the writ petition, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.