The properties which were the subject matter of litigation were situated in the erstwhile State of Travancore and belong to the Sub Tarvadh of respondents 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 original defendants 1 5 .
It is further alleged that the plaintiff leased these lands to the 6th defendant who paid the rent for one crop and when the plaintiff demanded rent for the other crops the sixth defendant informed him that defendants 1 5 were demanding the rent as they alleged they were entitled to it.
An objection was taken by the defendants that the suit was number maintainable without making Government a party.
This companytention was negatived by the District Munsiff.
A revision against that decision was filed in the High Court and when the matter came up for hearing the learned Advocate for the plaintiff respondent staled on his behalf that the Government was number a necessary party to the suit that he was number prepared to implead the State as a party to the suit and that he was prepared to take the risk of number impleading the State as a party.
The sales were companyfirmed, sale sanads were issued and the possession of the said items was delivered to the purchaser.
They were brought to sale for arrears to land revenue and items 1 and 2 were purchased by A. Mudaliar.
After the case was remanded the Distt.
As the sixth defendant was companyluding with defendants 1 5 he was also made a party.
In view of this information, plaintiff made enquiries and found that defendants l 5 had applied to the Chief Revenue Authority for setting aside the sales and that the said authority without numberice to the purchasers or to himself had set aside the sales.
Items 3, 4, 5 and 6 were similarly sold through Revenue sale at different times and were purchased by Shahul Hameed.
After the suit was dismissed the plaintiff gave a suit numberice to the Government under Section 80 of the CPC and thereafter filed a suit in the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagarcoil, of a similar nature as that earlier filed in the Distt.
On this representation by the plaintiff respondent that he was prepared to take the risk of number impleading the State the High Court dismissed the Revision petition.
A suit was, therefore, filed against defendants 1 to 5 in the District Munsifs Court, Nagarcoil being O.S. 482 of 1946 for a declaration that the orders setting aside the sales were without jurisdiction and void for numberconformity with Section 50 of the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act and also on other grounds.
During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died and plaintiffs 2 6 were impleaded as his legal representatives who are the appellants in this case.
Defendants 1 5 appealed to the Distt.
The mutation in respect of the items was also said to have been effected in the Revenue Records in plaintiffs name and ever since then the plaintiff says he has been paying the Government taxes thereon.
Munsif tried the suit and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff on 30 6 1052.
Some of the other issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiff.
All the items were also sold to the first plaintiff who became the owner of and alleged to be in possession of all the items 1 to 6.
Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This appeal is by certificate against the judgment of the Madras High Court allowing the appeal and setting a side the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagarcoil, granted in favour of the appellant on the ground that it is barred by limitation and that the appellant cannot be allowed under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 to exclude the period during which he was prosecuting an earlier suit and appeal as it companyld number be said to be prosecuted bonafide.
Thereafter the purchaser A. Mudaliar sold them to C.T. Mudaliar who in turn sold the properties to the first plaintiff by a registered sale deed.
The sales were companyfirmed, sale sanads were issued and possession of the said items delivered to the purchaser.
