The overruling decision by a Full Bench is a declaration of the law as it always has been, and the discarded decision must be treated as a nullity. The decision in Nanu v. State of Kerala was not sustainable in view of the Full Bench decision in Kerala Fisheries Corporation v. P.S. John.

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

This second Appeal is by the first defendant. The suit by the plaintiff was one for a prohibitory injunction restraining the first defendant from initiating proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, for recovery of the amount due to the first defendant from the plaintiffs. The essential plea on behalf of the plaintiff was that since three years have elapsed after the suit, the claim for recovery by the first defendant was barred by limitation and consequently, the amount could not be recovered by recourse to the Revenue Recovery Act. The trial court negatived that contention and found that the suit itself was haired by limitation, that the suit was hit by S.72 of the Re venue Recovery Act and going by the decision reported in Harikumaran Nair v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises (1993 (2) KLT 463), even if the recovery was barred By limitation through a civil court, the amount could be recovered by recourse to the Revenue Recovery Act. The plaintiffs filed an appeal. The lower appellate court purporting to follow the decision of the Division Benchin Nanu v. State of Kerala (1987 (2) KLT 921) reversed the decree of the trial court and held that the recovery was barred by limitation and consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to a perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from initiating proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. The decision of the lower appellate court was rendered on 12.4.1996. But on 10.4.1996 a Full Bench of this Court in Kerala Fisheries Corporation v. P.S. John (1996 (1) KLT 814) (but reported subsequently) had overruled the incision in Nanu and had held that proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act can be initiated even in a case where the recovery of the debt may be said to be barred through the civil court in view of the relevant Article of the Limitation Act. It is therefore, clear that the decision of the lower appellate court is clearly unsustainable.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that in Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. U. Gopalakrishna Kunikullaya (1997 (2) KLT 310) it has been held by a learned single judge of this Court that the decision of the Full Bench has operation only from 10.4.1996 the date of that judgment and contracts entered into prior to the date of that decision and in which recoveries should have been initiated before the date of that decision, would be still governed by the principle in Nanu's case specifically and clearly overruled by the Full Bench. I am afraid that I cannot see the decision in Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. (1997 (2) KLT 310) as an authority. First of all, when a Full Bench overrules a prior precedent, the effect of the same is that it is a declaration of the law as it always has been. There is no question of the declaration of law by the Full Bench having operation only from the date of such declaration. Quoting from People v. Graves (273 NYS 582) Bodenheimer in his text book on jurisprudence has stated:

"....when a precedent is over thrown, the overruling decision must be viewed as enunciating the law as it always has been and that the discarded decision must be treated as a nullity. " A judicial decision is the evidence of the law. An overruling decision does not change law, it impeaches the overruled decision as evidence of law. Adopting the theory that Courts merely declare pre-existing law, illogically follows that an overruling decision operates retro-actively"'

The Supreme Court in Suresfi Chandra Verma v. Chancellor, Nagpur University (AIR 1990 SC 2023) has authoritatively explained the position thus:

"It is unnecessary to point out that when the Court decides that the interpretation of a particular provision as given earlier was not legal, it in effect declares that there was it stood from the beginning was as per its decision, and that it was never the law otherwise. This being the case, since the Full Bench and now this Court have taken the view that the interpr