Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. His suit was to set aside a revenue sale relating to the plaint property which is Survey Number 2036. The property stands in the Thandaper of the 3rd defendant and for arrears of tax due from the 3rd defendant from his other properties the plaint property was sold in revenue auction on 30.12.1122. The plaintiff stated that these proceedings were initiated by the 3rd defendant collusively with the Pakuthy Officials and that the property was purchased in the name of his Kariasthan the 2nd defendant in the case. This sale was said to be vitiated by material irregularities. The plaintiff's case was that the property in question originally belonged to the 3rd defendant's Illom, that the same had been demised on Kanom to one Plavannarackal house people, that his tarwad obtained a mortgage of this property before 1030 from the Kanomdar's tarwad, that by lapse of time his tarwad had obtained the full right to the property, that in a partition deed in his tarwad this property was included and allotted to his share and that he had therefore the right to get a declaration of his title to the property and to see that the revenue sale was set aside. The State is the 1st defendant. Their contentions were that the Thandaper for the suit property, Thandaper No.21 stood in the name of the 3rd defendant, that the property in question was sold in revenue auction on 30.12.1122 for realisation of tax due under the said Thandaper No. 21, that demand notices were issued to the Thandaper holder, that the auction came to be conducted as the tax due was not paid by the 3rd defendant, that the plaintiff was not entitled to any notice as regards the steps taken in the revenue proceedings, that the sale was valid, that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The 2nd defendant maintained that the revenue sale and the proceedings which led to the sale were valid and binding on the plaint property and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree prayed for. 2. The 2nd defendant maintained that the revenue sale and the proceedings which led to the sale were valid and binding on the plaint property and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree prayed for. 2. The lower court found that the plaintiff was the full owner of the plaint property, that the plaintiff though he might be the Kudiyan who had obtained an absolute right to the property by non-payment of the Jenmikaram to the Jenmi for a long time was not entitled to notice, that though there had been collusion between the revenue subordinates and the 3rd defendant, with the object of getting at the property there were not sufficient materials enabling it to set aside the revenue sale, that the suit was not barred by limitation and that in view of the revenue sale the suit had to be dismissed, but without costs because of the collusion between the revenue subordinates and defendants 2 and 3. 3. The plaintiff appealed from the decree. The State has filed a cross-appeal claiming the costs disallowed in the lower court. The 2nd defendant has filed objections to the findings that the property belonged absolutely to the plaintiff that there was collusion between the revenue authorities and the 3rd defendant, that there was some irregularity in the proceedings that led to the revenue sale, and that the suit was not barred by limitation. He also objected to the direction relating to costs. 4. The 2nd defendant, auction-purchaser had filed objections to the findings but himself and his Advocate were not present to press the same or to argue the appeal. Mr. Chacko, appearing for the State admitted that the revenue sale in question was not for arrears of tax due on the land sold, but for tax due on other lands included in the Patta for the plaint property. The State had also not objected to the finding that the plaintiff had become the absolute owner of the property. The contention raised by the learned Government Pleader was that though the sale of the plaint property was not for arrears of tax due from it, the sale would be valid and binding on the property sold. According to him, the only defect would be, that the sale would not free the property of all its encumbrances as laid down in S. 39 of the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act. According to him, the only defect would be, that the sale would not free the property of all its encumbrances as laid down in S. 39 of the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act. He would say that the plaintiff had not put forward any case that he was a charge-holder. Since the plaintiff's case was that he was the full owner of the property he could not get the immunity which he would have had, had he been a charge-holder. There appears to be some fallacy in this argument of the learned Government Pleader. He was not able to bring to our notice any decided case which held that if a property being included in a Thandaper had been sold in revenue auction for tax not due from the property but due from other properties in that Thandaper, such a sale would be binding on the property sold even though the Thandaper-holder had lost all his rights over the property or had parted with the same long before the date of the revenue sale. It would be proper to examine here the cases decided by the Travancore High Court. There is some difference between the provisions in S. 39 of the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act and the Revenue Recovery Acts elsewhere. S. 39 of the Travancore Act would say that when a revenue sale was held for arrears of revenue due on the land sold, it would be free of all encumbrances on the property. It had been interpreted to mean that this provision would also be governing the revenue sales if the same was for tax due on the property sold as well as for properties belonging to the defaulter. This principle has not been further expanded to any extent and it does not appear that it is also possible to do so. The provisions in S. 39 of the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act are different from those in the Indian Dominion so that the decisions elsewhere on this matter may not be of any help. 5. In Narayanan v. Nayina Muhammathu (28 T.L.J. 226 F.B.) the relevant decided cases were considered and the following rules deduced: "[i] When an item of immovable property is sold for arrears of revenue due on such land the sale is free of all encumbrances. 5. In Narayanan v. Nayina Muhammathu (28 T.L.J. 226 F.B.) the relevant decided cases were considered and the following rules deduced: "[i] When an item of immovable property is sold for arrears of revenue due on such land the sale is free of all encumbrances. [ii] When an item of immovable property is sold for arrears of revenue due not on that property but on other hands belonging to the defaulter the sale will not affect prior encumbrances, if any, on the land sold." A third question would then necessarily arise for answer. If the property was sold for arrears of tax due thereon, and for tax due from the defaulter as regards his other properties, then what would be the position of prior encumbrances on that property. This was answered thus at page 234 of 28 T.L.J. "It follows therefore that under S. 39 the sale will extinguish the prior encumbrances even though it was held for the recovery of arrears due on the land sold as well as on other lands belonging to the defaulter." 6. We had also given our reasons to support this conclusion in our judgment in A.S. 263 of 1123 (Travancore). The ruling in 28 T.L.J. 226 had been followed subsequently in Varkey v. The Dewan of Travancore (32 TLJ 325) and Krishnan Karthavu v. Kumaraswami Namburipad (1950 K.L.T. 322). 7. For the purpose of the present case, the important question for consideration is whether the plaint property which belonged to the plaintiff, but which was included in the Thandaper of the 3rd defendant, could be sold free of all encumbrances for arrears of State revenue due, not from the property sold, but from other properties, admittedly belonging to the 3rd defendant. The second question decided in the 28 T.L.J. 226 would answer this, i.e., the sale would not affect any prior encumbrances, if any, on the property sold. In other words this would mean that the rights of third parties would not be affected by the sale. The sale would be like any other voluntary or involuntary sale, transferring only the defaulter's right, title and interest in the property. If he had no right, title or interest in the property, then the auction purchaser does not get anything by the sale. There were no arrears of State revenue due from the plaint property. The third defendant had lost his right in this property. If he had no right, title or interest in the property, then the auction purchaser does not get anything by the sale. There were no arrears of State revenue due from the plaint property. The third defendant had lost his right in this property. Under these circumstances the sale of this property for arrears of tax due on other lands and payable by the 3rd defendant could not be binding on the plaintiff or the plaint property. The sale has therefore to be set aside. 8. The lower court had in clear and unambiguous terms held thus: "So it is clear that there has been collusion between the revenue subordinates and the 3rd defendant and in order to get at the property the latter influenced the revenue subordinates to bring it to sale and purchased it in the name of his Kariasthan, the 2nd defendant." The plaint property is paddy land 24 cents in extent, and it had been sold for Rs. 43. The sale itself was brought about under suspicious circumstances. The lower court was not quite sure whether these circumstances would be sufficient to set aside the sale. Whatever that might be, the plaintiff is entitled to succeed on the point mentioned by us in the previous paragraph. We set aside the decree of the lower court and declare the plaintiff's title to the plaint property. The revenue sale held on 30.12.1122 is set aside and it is declared to be not binding on the plaint property. The plaintiff will get his costs in both the courts from the contesting defendants 1 and 2. The objection memorandum filed by defendants 1 and 2 are dismissed with costs. Allowed.