IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2834 of 2009 ----------- --------------------- AGAINST JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.33148/2003 DATED 14.7.2009 ........... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ M.HASSANKOYA, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHU, VELIMPARAMBIL HOUSE,SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF EKRALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLELCTOR, ALAPPUZHA 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK. 4. KOSHY VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, THAVALATHIL PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.2834 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14th July, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.33148 of 2003 directing the appellant to pay 50% of Ext.P3 decree passed in execution proceedings in O.S.No.128 of 1988 of the Sub Court, Alappuzha, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. The District Collector, Alappuzha in pursuance of a decree passed by the civil court under Ext.P1 had initiated recovery proceedings against the appellant and the State for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,87,731/-. Under Ext.P1 it was held that the defendants including the present appellant and the State are liable to satisfy the decree amount. As the successful party in the original suit filed execution petition, the State in order to W.A. No.2834 of 2009 2 avoid litigation and further liability, satisfied the entire decretal amount. Since the competent civil court found that both the appellant and the State are liable, after satisfying the decree, the Government has initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the appellant for the amount due from him. It is this action which was challenged before this Court in the writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge on going through Ext.P1 judgment and the decree held that the claim can be apportioned between the State and the appellant at 50 : 50 and as such by the impugned judgment held that the liability of the appellant/writ petitioner is limited to 50% on equitable considerations and it is only this 50% which the Government can recover. 4. On going through the entire records produced including the judgment and decree impugned, we find that practically the civil court has held that both the appellant and the State are jointly and severally liable for the entire decretal W.A. No.2834 of 2009 3 amount. As such, once one of the parties liable satisfied the decree, it cannot be said that it has no right to recover either entirely or partially the share or liability of the other party. As admittedly, the State had satisfied the entire decree amount, in our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in confining the liability of the appellant to 50%. 5. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and hence we find no merit in the appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns