IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2978 of 2008(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- AISHA BEEVI, AGED 62, W/O.THANGAL KUNJU, 'NAYANA MANZIL', THALAYOLAPARAMBU, VADAKARA P.O., VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., P.B.NO.140. KOTTAYAM 686001. 3. THE MANAGER, THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., THALAYOLAPARAMBU BRANCH, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. N.M.MEHABOOB, S/O.MUHAMMAD KUNJU, NIRAPPATTU VEEDU, VADAKARA DESOM, VADAKARA P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST. R1 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC,SC,DIST.CO-OP,BANK,KTM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.2978 of 2008-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned senior Government Pleader for the first respondent and the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. Having regard to the nature of the orders being issued hereunder, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with preserving his right to move this Court for reviewing this judgment, if aggrieved. 2.The petitioner gave her daughter in marriage to the fourth respondent. She also gave her property as a collateral security for a loan availed by the fourth respondent from the third WP(C)2978/2008 -: 2 :- respondent. Thereafter, disputes arose between the fourth respondent and his wife and children leading to Ext.P2 order issued by the Family Court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Indisputably, the fourth respondent is the principal debtor. Hence, it is beyond doubt that justice in the situation requires that the property of the fourth respondent, which is also given as a collateral security, shall be proceeded against in the first instance. The writ petition also contains an undertaking that the petitioner will, in view of the distress action, pay the balance. If that does not work out and if the sale of the property of the fourth respondent does not wipe off the debt, the third respondent will be at liberty to proceed against the property of the petitioner also. The possession of the property of the petitioner shall not be taken until the proceedings against the property of the fourth respondent are completed. The petitioner shall not, however, alienate or otherwise encumber the property belonging to her. WP(C)2978/2008 -: 3 :- With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/