IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32766 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- L.KAMALAMMA AMMA, KUTTOOR KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM WARD, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. TAHSILDAR (R.R), KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, POOTHAKKULAM BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. (CORRECTED) 5. RADHAKRISHNAN, KUTTOOR KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM WARD, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR P.O., KOLLAM. THE NAME OF THE BANK IS CORRECTED AS “INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK” INSTEAD OF “UNION BANK OF INDIA” AS PER ORDER DTD. 18.11.2008 IN I.A.14466 OF 2008. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. BY SC SRI. P.B. SURESH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 32766 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the mother of the fifth respondent. Fifth respondent availed a loan from the fourth respondent, Indian Overseas Bank. Proceedings have been taken. According to the petitioner, the Bank has not so far initiated action under any other statute purposely to hand over the fifth respondent and the petitioner. It is stated that the five cents of property pledged to the Bank is a family property, which is subsequently transferred in the name of the fifth respondent for availing a loan. There is a house in the property and the movables kept in the house belong to the petitioner. The Village Officer has come and prepared an inventory of the movables. It is the case of the petitioner that the movables kept in the house are the utensils and household articles, which are in the possession and usage of the petitioner and the Village Officer has no right to attach and sell the movables. It is the case of the petitioner that the Bank is a secured debtor and the business for which the loan was advanced had insured to a private company and the Bank will not in any way lose their money. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Bank and the learned Government Pleader. WPC.32766/2008. 2 3. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent, who is her son, had availed a loan. If steps are taken for recovery of the amount and the movables belonging to the fifth respondent are attached against them, certainly the petitioner cannot have any complaint. But if in the course of the purported recovery of the amount due from the fifth respondent, the movables belonging to the petitioner are attached, the petitioner can file a claim petition as held in the decision reported in M.S.Khadija v. Dy. Tahsildar (Revenue), Kottayam (1974 K.L.T. SN Page 3). In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: If the Recovery Officer attaches any movable property belonging to the petitioner, the petitioner can file a claim petition before the officer, in which case, the officer will consider the claim and take a decision thereon in accordance with law before any further proceedings are taken. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb