High Court Kerala High Court

Madhavan Nair vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 30 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
Madhavan Nair vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 30 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16099 of 2008(N)


1. MADHAVAN NAIR, S/O.NANUPILLAI AGED 70
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK

3. THE SALE OFFICER (EZHUCONE BRANCH)

4. M.BHARGAVI AMMA,VALIYA VEETIL PLAPPALLIL

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :30/05/2008

 O R D E R
         THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

             WP(C).No.16099 of 2008-N

  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

        Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008.

                     JUDGMENT

1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned counsel for the second respondent and the

learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents

1 and 3. Notice to the fourth respondent is

dispensed with preserving her right to move this

Court for review of this judgment, if aggrieved.

2.According to the petitioner, the fourth

respondent, who is the widow of his younger

brother was a surety for a facility availed by

one Vijayachandran from the second respondent.

It is also stated that one Padmakumari is also a

surety for that transaction. An arbitration award

was passed in a proceeding that commenced in

1998. Petitioner has now filed Ext.P1 which has

WP(C)16099/2008 -: 2 :-

been placed before the third respondent

essentially claiming that the movables in the

family house belonged to the petitioner and his

surviving brother and did not belong to the late

husband of the fourth respondent. Whatever be the

quality of the claim made in Ext.P1, that

application needs to be considered and disposed

of without delay. That apart, it is quite

surprising to note that the execution of the

award passed in a proceeding commenced in 1998 is

still not over. I would wonder as to what action

has been taken against the movable and immovable

assets or person of the principal debtor, the co-

surety and also against any immovable property of

the fourth respondent. This is a matter for the

bank to pursue before the third respondent.

Without expressing anything on merits, this writ

petition is disposed of preserving the right of

parties to the proceedings to contest the matter

in accordance with law, however, directing that

final decision shall be taken on Ext.P1 at the

WP(C)16099/2008 -: 3 :-

earliest, at any rate, within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.

Sha/030608