Judgment

SIRKI, CJI. :- By judgment dated May 26, 1970, this Court (Sikri, J., as he then was, and Ray J.) allowed Civil Appeal No. 542 of 1967, (reported in (1971) 1 SCR 629), set aside the judgment of the High Court and passed a decree in favour of the appellant after modifying the decree passed by the Trial Court. The respondent subsequently filed Review Petition No. 35 of 1970 for review on the ground that they had failed to bring to the notice of the Court the provisions of Tranvancore Regulation IX of 1094 and the fact that the loans were granted under the above Regulation. We allowed review on February 1, 1971. This judgment is however, in continuation of our earlier judgment dated May 26, 1970.

2. The only new point which needs discussion is the effect of the provisions of Travancore Regulation IX of 1094 on our conclusion on the fourth point in the judgment.

3. We had inter alia held that the "fourth point raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is fatal 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 5, B Schedule items 1 and 3 to 8, and C schedule items were not given as security under the bond and the Government had 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 the whole sale and we have no option but to declare 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."

4. It now transpires that Regulation IX of 1094 - Travancore Land Improvement & Agricultural Loans Regulation - provides for recovery of land improvement loans from the borrower as if they were arrears of land revenue due by him. Section 7 of the above regulation provides:

"7. (1) Subject to such Rules as may be made under Section 10, all loans granted under this Regulation, all interests (if any) chargeable thereon and costs (if any) incurred in making the same shall, when they become due, by recoverable in any of the following modes:

(a) from the borrower as if they were arears of land revenue due by him;

(b) from his surety (if any) as it they were arrears fo land revenue due by him;

(c) except as regards the loans referred to in Section 4, out of the land for the benefit of which the loan has been granted as if they were arrears of land revenue due in respect of that land;

(d) out of the property comprised in the collateral security according to the procedure for the realisation of land revenue by sale of immovable property other than the land on which the revenue is due:

Provided that no proceeding in respect of any land under Clause (c) shall affect any interest in that land which existed before the date of the order granting the loan, other than the interest of the borrower, and of mortgagees of, or persons having charges on, that interest, and, where the loan is granted under Section 3 with the consent of another person, the interest of that person, and of mortgagees of, or persons having charges on, that interest.

(2) When any sum due on account of any such interests or costs is paid by a surety or an owner of property comprised in any collateral security, or recovered from a surety or out of any such property, such sum shall, on the application of the surety or the owner of such property, be recovered on his behalf from the borrower or out of the land for the benefit of which the loan ha