The purchaser of immovable property in enforcement of a valid award under the Co-operative Societies Act is deemed to be the holder of a decree for recovery of immovable property, leading to the application of Art.136 of the Limitation Act.

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

The revision petitioners are obstructors when a sale certificate issued in favour of the respondent in enforcement of au award passed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act was sought to be enforced. The award was passed on 28.12.1978. The property in the question was sold. The sale was confirmed on 5.11.1980 and a sale certificate was issued. When property was attempted to be delivered obstruction was offered on 7.2.1986. The purchaser approached the civil court for delivery with an application on 20.2.1990 within 12 years of the confirmation of sale but beyond one year thereof. The obstructor raised a contention that the execution was barred by limitation in view of Art.134 of the Limitation Act. The purchaser contended that it was Art.136 of the Limitation Act that applied and since the. application for delivery was within 12 years of the confirmation of sale, he was entitled to delivery of the property. The executing court relying on the decision of this Court in Varghese v. Muthukulam Service Co-operative Society (1980 KLT 400) held that it was Art.136 of the Limitation Act that applied and hence the delivery having been sought within 12 years of the confirmation of sale the execution petition was within time and delivery could be ordered. This is what is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

2. When the matter came up before a learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge stating that an important question arose for decision, referred the matter to a Division Bench. That is how this Revision has come up before us.

3. It is by virtue of R.84 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules that the purchaser of immovable property in enforcement of a valid award under the Co-operative Societies Act is enabled to approach the civil court for delivery of the property when obstruction is offered. R.84 reads as follows:

"Where any lawful purchaser of immovable property is resisted and prevented by any person other than a person, (not being the defaulter) claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account, from obtaining possession of the immovable property purchased, any Court of competent jurisdiction, cm application and production of the certificate of sale referred to in sub- r.(5) of R.83 above, shall cause the proper process to be issued for the purposes of putting such purchaser in possession in the same manner as if the immovable property purchased had been decreed to She purchaser by a decision of the Court."

Rule 84 thus deems the purchaser of the property in enforcement of the award as the holder of a decree for recovery of immovable property. This at once indicates that Art.136 of the Limitation Act would be attracted. The Rule does not deem the purchaser merely as a purchaser in execution of a decree which alone would attract Art.134 of the Limitation Act. This Court in Varghese v. Muthukulam Service Cooperative Society (1980 KLT40X3) dealt with this aspect clearly and this Court has held that it is Act 136 of the Limitation Act that would apply. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in Varghese v. Muthukulam Service Co-operative Society (1980 KLT 400). When the Rule says that the purchaser must be deemed to be the holder of a decree for possession, the fiction so predicated or engrafted, must be given its full play and if it is so done, it is clear that the purchaser in enforcement of an award under the Co-operative Societies Act and the Co-operative Societies Rules, is in the position of the holder of a decree for recovery of possession. If so, when he seeks delivery of property, it will be Art.136 of the Limitation Act that would apply and not Art.134 of the Limitation Act which applies only when a purchaser at a court sale in execution of a decree seeks possession of the property purchased by him. We see no reason not to accept the ratio of the decision in Varghese v. Muthukulam Service Co-operative Soc