IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 9629 of 2005(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.MARIAM, W/O.BABY KURUVILA, AGED 77 YEARS, RETIRED H.S.A., RESIDING AT PATTAMANA HOUSE, PAYAM AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN SMT.P.GOPIKA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAYAM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. BABY KURUVILA, S/O.MANI, AGED 76 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT PATTAMANA HOUSE, PAYAM AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. N.C.BABY, S/O.CHACKO, NAGAMATTATHIL HOUSE, KUNNOTH, PAYAM AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DT.7.2.2005 PERTAINING TO THE SAID BUILDING NO.PP-VII/273. P2: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT.18.3.2005 ISSUED BY SECRETARY, PAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. P3: TRUE COPY OF SCHEDULE OF ATTACHMENT ISSUED BY R3 DT.9.3.2005. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.9629 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings for recovery of abkari arrears due from her husband namely, 4th respondent. The movables from petitioner's house were attached and entrusted to 5th respondent vide Ext.P3. The petitioner's case is that the house and the movables belong to her and therefore, recovery cannot be made by attachment and sale of petitioner's assets. Obviously recovery cannot be made against petitioner merely because she is the wife of the defaulter. It is for the petitioner to produce copies of title deeds or documents to establish that petitioner is the owner of movables and also the house. The second respondent is directed to verify the title deeds pertaining to the properties and proceed for recovery only if the property belongs to the defaulter. However, if petitioner derives title from her defaulter-husband, then such transaction can be declared invalid, if it was made to defraud the Revenue and then recovery can be continued. The W.P. is disposed of directing the second respondent to exclude personal properties of the petitioner from recovery and to confine recovery against defaulter and his assets, even if transferred to petitioner. 2 Government Pleader submitted that attachment of movables were effected based on petitioner's admission that the same belong to the defaulter. If that be so, such properties can be sold. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms