IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5415 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. A.RADHA, W/O.RAJAN, AGED 67, AYADATHIL HOUSE, ALAKODE AMSOM, ARANGAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. RAJAN KOVIL VALAPPIL, AGED 75, AYADATHIL HOUSE, ALAKODE AMSOM, ARANGAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. NISHAMOL DEVADAS, W/O.DEVADAS, PULIYAMBARAMBIL HOUSE, KUDIYANMALA, ERUVESSY AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. A.DEVADAS, S/O.RAJAN, PEON, ALAKODE SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD., ALAKODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. SYNDICATE BANK, ALAKODE BRANCH, REPRESENTED ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ALAKODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. SPL. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALIPARAMBA. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, ALAKODE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY SC SRI.ASOK KUMAR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 5415 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners, wife and husband, are aggrieved that the steps under the Revenue Recovery Act are taken against their property for recovery of amounts allegedly due to the 3rd respondent from respondents 1 and 2. First respondent had availed a loan from the 3rd respondent and the 2nd respondent who is the son of the petitioner and the husband of the 1st respondent stood as a guarantor thereto. Respondents 1 and 2 are staying separately, it is submitted. Nevertheless, proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of amount due from the 1st respondent is sought to be enforced against petitioners and their property 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. Unless the petitioners are either co-obligants or sureties for the loan availed by respondents 1 and 2, from 3rd respondent, they cannot be held W.P ( C) No. 5415 of 2008 2 responsible for repayment of the amount stated to be due to the 3rd respondent. Proceedings issued in relation to the defaulter cannot be enforced against father and mother of the defaulter merely for the reason that they are the parents of the defaulter. In my view, these are matters to be brought to the notice of the Recovery Officer in the first instance. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to file a detailed objection before the 4th respondent, as regards the enforcement of the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act against them or their property. If objections are filed within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be enquired into after notice to the petitioners, respondents 1 and 2 and 3rd respondent and an order shall be passed. Enforcement of Exhibit P5 shall be kept in abeyance in so far as the petitioners and their property are concerned. I make it clear that the order will not stand in the way of the said notice being enforced against the defaulter as such. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 5415 of 2008 2 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 W.P ( C) No. 5415 of 2008 2 ORDER 25th May, 2007