The court emphasized that the suit for recovery of possession can benefit from longer limitation periods while excluding time spent in earlier legal proceedings, reaffirming due process in property rights.

-

EASWARAN S., J.

---------------------------------------------------------

R.S.A No.156 OF 2024 ---------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 19^th day of August, 2025

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of the concurrent findings rendered by the Sub Court, Kattappana in O.S.No.5/2015 and by the II Additional District Court, Thodupuzha, in A.S.No.15/2019.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

2.1. Pursuant to an agreement of sale dated 20.08.1990, the plaintiff purchased plaint schedule property in the year 1997 from the 9^th defendant – Sri.K.K.Augustine. Sri.K.K.Augustine was an assessee under the 5^th defendant - Commercial Tax Officer, Circle 1, Thodupuzha. For alleged arrears of sales tax, the property of the 9^th defendant was attached under the provisions of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act by issuing order of attachment consequent to the notice of sale. The property was later sold to the 6^th defendant in the suit on 21.08.1998. By order dated 19.03.1998, the appeal preferred by the assesse before the Appellate Tribunal under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 , came to be allowed and the order of assessment was set aside. On 28.03.1998, the District Collector confirmed the sale. Subsequently, on 26.09.1998, an order of reassessment was issued by the Commercial Tax Officer finding that there are no sales tax dues from the 9^th defendant. On 11.11.1998, the 9^th defendant approached the District Collector under Section 54 of the requesting the District Collector to cancel the same. On 31.01.2002, the same was dismissed holding that the application is filed within a period of one month as provided under Section 53 of the . The order passed by the District Collector was challenged before this Court in O.P.No.18389/2002, which was dismissed by judgment dated 16.03.2007. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred W.A.No.1827/2007, which was disposed of on 15.01.2014, confirming the judgment of the Single Bench, but however preserving the liberty of the plaintiff to redress his grievance in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. Subsequent to the judgment of this Court, the plaintiff preferred O.S.No.5/2015 before the Sub Court, Kattappana, on 13.01.2015, seeking declaration that the sale conducted on 28.01.1998 as void and non est and consequently, allowed the plaintiff to recover the possession of the property.

-

2.2. The suit was contensted by defendants 1 to 5. The subsequent purchaser, the 6^th defendant remained ex parte, while the original assessee also remained ex parte. The State contended that the suit is barred under Section 72 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and also the suit is barred by limitation. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A8 documents were produced and on behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 and B2 were produced. The plaintiff was examined as PW1. No oral evidence was adduced by the defendants. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, came to the conclusion that the suit is hit by Section 72 of the and that the suit is barred by limitation as well. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the District Court, Thodupuzha, in A.S.No.15/2019. By judgment dated 04.08.2023, the District Court came to the conclusion that the suit is not barred under Section 72 of the Revenue Recovery Act and that the sale dated 28.01.1998 is non est in the eye of law. But, however, non-suited the appellant on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff is before this Court in t