These two appeals arise from the common judgment passed in two suits jointly tried by the Additional Sub Court, Cochin.

2. Both the suits were filed in forma pauperis challenging the revenue recovery proceedings by the State against the properties of the plaintiffs, a firm and a partner, common in both cases, and seeking re-delivery of the properties sold in revenue sales, allegedly, towards amounts due, recoverable as arrears of public revenue due on land to the Government. Suits, after trial, were dismissed. A.S.No.570/91 arises from O.S.No.196/79 instituted before the Sub Court, Cochin. The other appeal, A.S.No.43/94 is from a suit transferred to the above court, and renumbered as O.S.No.86 of 1981, which was earlier instituted as O.S.No.252 of 1979 before the Sub Court Alleppey. The suits were instituted before two different courts, Sub Court of Cochin and Alleppey, since revenue sales impeached in such suits were in respect of properties situate within the jurisdiction of the respective court. Suit pending on the file of the Sub Court, Alleppey was transferred to the Sub Court, Cochin by orders of this Court to facilitate joint trial and disposal of the suits.

3. The first plaintiff is a registered firm represented by its Managing Partner, and the 2nd plaintiff a partner of the firm, who is also the son of its Managing Partner. The firm was carrying on the business of coir exporting and while so, as its operation was seriously affected resulting in lay off and retrenchment of its workers, the Government intervened, and pursuant to mediation talks for revival of the operation of the firm, and, more so to protect the interests of its workers, the Government agreed to stand as a guarantor to a Nationalised Bank to extend financial assistance to the firm to the turn of Rs.20 lakhs. A sum of Rs.6 lakhs was then outstanding as liability from the firm to a bank viz., National Grindlays Bank. The Government furnished a guarantee to another bank – Syndicate Bank, to provide financial assistance of Rs.20 lakhs to the firm in which apart from incorporating specific terms insulating the right of the Government to realize the sum from the firm and its assets and also of the partners of the firm both personally and from their properties in the event of default of discharge of the liability to the bank in instalments, for which a period of three years was provided, the bank was empowered to take such other security as required from the firm to extend the financial facility. Ext.A4 is a copy of the guarantee deed executed by the Government to the bank. The bank guarantee was furnished, admittedly, after the firm as represented by its Managing Partner and also the 2nd plaintiff executed a mortgage of its properties, eight items, as security for the payment of the loan amount of Rs.20 lakhs. Ext.A5 is a copy of that mortgage deed. Already an equitable mortgage over some properties of the firm and its partners was then subsisting in favour of the Grindlays Bank, which had extended earlier some financial facility to the firm and in respect of which then a liability of Rs.6 lakhs was outstanding. Pursuant to furnishing of the guarantee by the Government, after taking Ext.A5 mortgage from the firm, Syndicate Bank advanced financial facility of Rs.20 lakhs to the firm, out of which Rs. 6 lakhs was paid to discharge the liability of Grindlays Bank. Security documents furnished with the above bank were collected, and other documents afresh were taken from the firm, to secure the facility provided. The firm failing to repay the amount to the bank, even after expiry of the period specified under the guarantee given by the Government, after giving notice to discharge the liability and that being not responded by payment, the Government initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act (for short “RR Act”) against the firm, and, later, after revenue sale, honouring the commitment made in its guarantee cleared off the liabilities due from