IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 15387 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RAJESH, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, RAJESH BHAVAN, PRAMADOM MURI, PRAMADOM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. MR. P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PRAMADOM. 4. SUBRAMANIAN PILLAI, AGED 48, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, KONNAKALLIL VEETTIL, AZOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 5. AJITHAKUMARI, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, KALLARA THEKKETHIL VEEDU, VELLAPPARA, KONNY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN R5 ADV. MS. ASHA CHERIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15387 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 12th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 not to proceed against petitioner or his property covered by Exts. P1 and P2 for any default of 4th respondent for payment of maintenance or for any or liability of the 4th respondent; And ii. Such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. The 5th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that, the conveyance effected by the 4th respondent in the name of the petitioner, as per Ext. P1 sale deed is not genuine and it is a sham document, to avoid the liability in connection with the matrimonial dispute between the 4th and 5th respondents, pending before the concerned Family Court. It is also stated that, the petitioner is son-in- law of the brother of the 4th respondent and further that even after the sale stated as effected, the 4th respondent is still residing in the very same property. Reliance/reference is made to the proceedings before W.P. (C) No. 15387 of 2010 : 2 : this Court, filed against the fourth respondent as Crl. M.C.1240 of 2010, arising from the relevant proceedings of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. 3. The second respondent has filed a statement almost in support of the version as put forth by the 5th respondent. It is also stated that as per Annexure R2 (a) Village Officer's report, eventhough the 4th respondent has transferred his immovable property to the petitioner, still the 4th respondent is residing in the very same property, covered by Ext. P1 sale deed. Further, it is also pointed out that, any transfer to defeat the revenue is not binding upon the Government. It is also stated in paragraph 3 that, there was an attachment against the property concerned, but the said attachment was subsequently lifted as borne by Ext. R2 (a) intimation obtained in this regard. The statement further says that no action has been taken against the petitioner or his properties (last sentence of paragraph 2). 4. In view of the statement made from the part of the second respondent, particularly in paragraph 2, that no action has been taken against the petitioner or his property, the Writ Petition is disposed of, as it does not require any further orders, for the time being. This however is without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the other respondents W.P. (C) No. 15387 of 2010 : 3 : and the Revenue, if the sale is hit by Section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recover Act or other relevant provisions of law. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd