IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9629 of 2005(U)
1. A.MARIAM, W/O.BABY KURUVILA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
4. BABY KURUVILA, S/O.MANI,
5. N.C.BABY, S/O.CHACKO,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURENDRAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :14/08/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
....................................................................
W.P.(C) No.9629 of 2005
....................................................................
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of
abkari arrears due from her husband namely, 4th respondent. The movables
from petitioner’s house were attached and entrusted to 5th respondent vide
Ext.P3. The petitioner’s case is that the house and the movables belong to
her and therefore, recovery cannot be made by attachment and sale of
petitioner’s assets. Obviously recovery cannot be made against petitioner
merely because she is the wife of the defaulter. It is for the petitioner to
produce copies of title deeds or documents to establish that petitioner is the
owner of movables and also the house. The second respondent is directed
to verify the title deeds pertaining to the properties and proceed for recovery
only if the property belongs to the defaulter. However, if petitioner derives
title from her defaulter-husband, then such transaction can be declared
invalid, if it was made to defraud the Revenue and then recovery can be
continued. The W.P. is disposed of directing the second respondent to
exclude personal properties of the petitioner from recovery and to confine
recovery against defaulter and his assets, even if transferred to petitioner.
2
Government Pleader submitted that attachment of movables were effected
based on petitioner’s admission that the same belong to the defaulter. If that
be so, such properties can be sold.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms