IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24845 of 2009(A)
1. P.JWALINI DEVI ADDWA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.PATHUMMA, W/O.ABDUL RAHMAN,
... Respondent
2. ASMA BEEVI, D/O.PANNIKODAN ABDULRAHMAN,
3. SAMMATH, D/O.PANNIKODAN ABDULRAHMAN OF
4. MUSTHAFA, S/O. -DO- -DO-
5. P.V.SREENIKA KUMAR,
6. P.V.SREYAN SUJAYIN, D/O. -DO- -DO-
7. RAJAN, C/O.VEERACHANDRA GOWDER,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :16/09/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 24845 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 16th September, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the widow of late Sri. Veerachandra Gowder. A
motor vehicle owned by the said Veerachandra Gowder met with an
accident on 27-9-1979. In that accident, one Mr. Abdul Rahman
died. The widow and children of Mr. Abdul Rahman, who are the
respondents 1 to 4 herein, filed O.P (MV) No. 2074/1980 before the
M.A.C.T., Kozhikode, who awarded compensation for the death of Mr.
Abdul Rahman, which was to be paid by Sri. Veerachandra Gowder.
Appeals were filed before this Court against the award, which were
dismissed. Appeal before the Supreme Court also did not meet with
success. Thereafter, the claimants filed E.P.No. 23/2008 for recovery
of the compensation amount with interest. In the meanwhile, Sri.
Veerachandra Gowder died. The Tribunal proceeded against the
estate of the deceased owner of the vehicle and attached the
properties. That attachment order is challenged before me at the
instance of the widow of Sri. Veerachandra Gowder, the petitioner
herein.
2. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner
is not the only legal heir of Sri. Veerachandra Gowder and therefore
the execution proceedings are bad for want of non-joinder of
parties. It is further contended that the property proceeded against is
the house where the petitioner is residing and when other properties
are available as estate of the deceased, there is no reason why that
part of the estate, wherein the petitioner is residing, should be
proceeded against.
3. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner.
4. It is not disputed before me that the property proceeded
against is part of the estate of the deceased Veerachandra Gowder. If
that be so, the petitioner cannot have any objection regarding
W.P.C. No. 24845/2009 -: 2 :-
proceeding against the property. The fact that other properties are
also available as estate of the deceased is no ground to hold that the
proceedings for attachment against this particular property, which is
also part of the estate of the deceased, is bad. Insofar as the other
legal heirs have not chosen to challenge the proceedings for
attachment, the petitioner cannot raise objections on the ground that
the other legal heirs have not been impleaded in the proceedings.
5. The accident occurred in 1979. 21 years have passed by.
The legal heirs of the deceased are yet to get the compensation
awarded. It would be a travesty of justice if the recovery of
compensation amount is delayed any further. Therefore, I am not
inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the
writ petition is dismissed.
The registry shall re-transmit the records of E.P.No. 23/2008
back to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.