Joseph Vithayathil, J.

A. S. Nos. 220 to 224 of 1123 and A. S. No. 448 of 1123 were referred to a Full Bench by the following order:

“These appeals were heard together. The suit O. S. 17 of 1118 in the District Court of Nagercoil as originally framed was to set aside several revenue sales in respect of different portions of the plaint properties comprised in four survey numbers lying in one tract of paddy land called Nedunkettu Konam. Subsequently under orders of the court the suit was split up into seven separate suits, O. S. 17 of 1118 and O. S. 146 to 151 of 1119. O. S. 17 of 1118 was to set aside the revenue sale dated 20-12-1109 in respect of 54 cents in S. No. 3 002. O. S. 146 to 151 of 1119 were to set aside the revenue sales, of 5-6-1111 regarding 99 cents in S. No. 3002, of 30-12-1112 regarding 99 cents in S. No. 3001, of 31-9-1112 regarding 9 cents in S. No. 3003, of 22-10-1113 regarding 10 cents in S. No, 3003/1, of 22-1-1110 regarding 33 cents in S. No. 3003 and of 26-7-1114 regarding, 14 cents in S. No. 3020/A respectively. The cases were jointly tried. The court below decreed the suits O. S. 146 to 149 of 1119. Defendants 2 and 5 have filed A.S. 220 to 224 of 1123 against the decrees in O.S. 147 of 1119, O.S. 149 of 1119, O.S. 148 of 1119 and O.S. 146 of 1119 respectively. The first defendant Sirkar and the plaintiff have filed memorandum of objections, O. S. 150 of 1119 was dismissed by the trial court and the plaintiff has filed A.S. 448 of 1123 against that decree. The first defendant and defendants 2 and 5 have filed memorandum of objections.

2. Admittedly all the above suits have been filed more than one year after the revenue sales impugned. The case of the plaintiff is that the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act in the matter of sale of immovable property for arrears of public revenue have not been complied with and therefore the sales are ab initio void for want of jurisdiction to sell. He therefore contends that neither Section 51 of the Revenue Recovery Act nor Article 9 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the present cases and that the suits are therefore within time. In support of his - position the learned advocate for the plaintiff relied on the decision of the Travancore High Court reported in 26 T. L. R. 55 and the subsequent decisions of the same court reported in 57 T. L. R. 413, /945 T. L. R. 926, T. L R. 131 and. 1948 T. L R. 1032.

3. Section 51 of the Revenue Recovery Act as it was first enacted was as follows:

“Nothing in this Regulation shall be held to prevent parties, deeming themselves aggrieved by any decision or order passed or proceedings taken under this Regulation from suing the Government in the Civil Courts:

Provided that such suits shall be preferred within six months from the time at which the cause of action arose

Provided further that the whole time occupied by the Diwan in revising the proceedings under Section 50 shall be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation of the said six months”.

In construing this section Hunt J. and Muthunayagom Pillai, J. in 25 T. L. R. 233 held that: ,

“If in any particular case, there has been a revenue sale when there was no revenue in arrears, the whole of the proceedings was beyond the jurisdiction of the revenue officer, who held the sale and hence void ab initio and not entitled to the protection given by the Revenue Recovery Law. In such a case the ?ale is, in the eye of law, non-existent from the very commencement and consequently there will be no necessity to set it aside”.

As a result of this decision the six months period of limitation prescribed by the above section for institution of suits applied only to cases where the sale of property was for arrears of revenue in fact due and not to cases where the property Was sold for arrears of revenue alleged by the revenue authorities to be due but was not really d