Case: Luka Mathai Vs. S Subramonia Iyer

3. We had inter alia held that the "fourth point raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is fata! for the respondent." We observed that "the bonds do not give power to the Government to sell the properties other than those mentioned in the bond. The properties mentioned in plaint A schedule items 2 to S, B Schedule items 1 and 3 to 8; and C schedule items were not given as security under the bond and the Government bad no authority to sell them. It is conceded on behalf of the respondent that all the properties were sold in one lot. This, in our opinion, vitiates ... that the sale of all the properties was void." The fourth point raised before us was that "the Government had no authority to attach and sell plaint A schedule items 2 to 5 and B Schedule items 1 and 3 to 8 and C schedule items, which were not given as security under the bonds; and if the Government had no authority then the sale of all the properties is void." We had while dealing with the third ground also observed that "no other regulation has been brought to our notice which makes dues under this bond to be recoverable as arrears of public or land revenue."

Court's reasoning:
It is not necessary for the borrower to specifically so covenant in his bond that he would be personally liable because S.7 (1) (a) of Regulation IX of 1094 makes the borrower personally liable. This is also made clear by sub-S. (2). Under sub-S. (2), if a surety pays the loan he can request that the money be recovered from the borrower on his behalf.We are unable to appreciate how this case assists us on the question whether there is any personal liability of the appellant or not.It may be noted that S.5 ofthe Agriculturists Loans Act, 1884, provides: "Every loan made in accordance with such rules, all interest (if any) chargeable thereon, and costs (if any) incurred in making or recovering the same, shall, when they become due, be recoverable from the person to whom the loan was made, or from any person who has become surety for the repayment thereof, as if they were arrears of land, revenue or costs incurred in recovering the same due by the persons to whom the loan was made or by hisinterpreting this section, the Madras High Court, in the above-mentioned case clearly held that it was open to the Collector to sell any part of the immovable property belonging to the defaulter, and the remedy was not confined to that particular property is respect of which or for whose improvement the loan had been taken.12. We may also mention that in Lakshman Venkatesh Naik v. Secretary of State AIR. 1939 Bom.183 while dealing with S.7 ofthe Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883, which is in terms similar to S.7 of Travancore Regulation II of 1094, it was observed that "it was therefore open to the Collector to adopt all or any of the four different methods which the Section provides for the recovery of the taqavithese provisions it is quite clear that the loans granted under the Regulation, interest and charges, etc. can be recovered in any or all of the four modes described in the section. They can be recovered from the borrower under clause (a); they can be recovered from a surety under clause (b); the land for the benefit of which the loan had been granted can be proceeded against under clause (c); and under clause (d) property comprised in the collateral security can be proceeded against. The fact that the properties which had been sold were not mentioned in the bond as collateral security or were not expressly hypothecated does not make any difference because the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act I of 1068 provides under S.5 that "when Public Revenue doe on land may be in arrear, such arrear, together with interest, if any, and costs of process, may be recovered by the sale of the defaulters movable or immovable property or both, in the manner hereinafter provided.We are unable to agree with this contention.It is not necessary for the borrower to specifically so covenant in his bond that he would be personally liable because S.7 (1) (a) of Regulation IX of 1094 makes the borrower personally liable. This is also made clear by(2), if a surety pays the loan he can request that the money be recovered from the borrower on his behalf.