IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 928 of 2006()
1. C.MATHU AMMA, CHENGATTU HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
4. THE TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD,
5. C.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.CHAMI,
6. C.MOHANAN, DO. DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.S.EASWARAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.)
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :20/11/2006
O R D E R
V.K. BALI, C.J. & S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.A.No.928 of 2006
-------------------------------
Dated, this the 20th day of November, 2006
JUDGMENT
V.K.Bali,C.J.(Oral)
Challenge in the present writ appeal is to order dated 20th
December, 2005 in O.P.No.21062 of 1999 passed by the learned
Single Judge. The appellant before us is the second petitioner in
the original petition filed by her son challenging Exts.P3 and P4.
The son of the appellant had purchased 0.5670 hectare of land in
Kuthanur Village as per the sale deed Ext.P1 from the additional
5th respondent. It is the case of the appellant that eversince he
purchased the property it is in their possession and prior to the
sale of the property the 5th respondent offered it as solvency for
the conduct of toddy shop. Since there was failure on the part of
5th and 6th respondents, proceedings were initiated by
respondents 1 to 3 and for that purpose Exts.P3 and P4 were
issued. In such circumstances, it is the case of the appellant that
late Karunakaran approached this Court by filing the original
petition for quashing Exts.P3 and P4 which has been dismissed by
W.A.No.928/ 2006 2
the impugned judgment. It is clear from a reading of the
impugned judgment and still from the arguments also that what
the learned counsel pleads at this stage is that the recovery
proceedings were opposed on the plea of limitation. The learned
Single Judge while dealing with the issue observed as follows:
“It is conceded that the recovery proceedings were
initiated within twelve years and since the liability is
covered by mortgage and since revenue recovery is
initiated within twelve years, there is no limitation.”
2. Assuming that the appellant did not concede that the
liability was covered by mortgage and concession was only with
regard to proceedings having been initiated within twelve years,
it shall have to be shown that the finding arrived at by the
learned Single Judge that the liability is covered by mortgage is
incorrect. No material at all has been placed on record that may
detract from the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.
If the liability was covered by mortgage, the plea of limitation
would fail. The proceedings could be initiated within twelve
years. There is no merit in the writ appeal, which is hereby
dismissed.
3. At this stage learned counsel states that the appellant be
given three months time to make payment of the arrears of
W.A.No.928/ 2006 3
toddy workers welfare fund contribution and the property be not
sold within that time. The request made by the counsel is
accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case and also for
the reason that the same has not been opposed by the learned
counsel for the respondents.
V.K. BALI,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
S.SIRI JAGAN,
JUDGE.
vns