IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10271 of 2010(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BHARATHY AMMA, D/O.ESWARY AMMA, KINARUVILA THEKKETHIL, PAVITHRESWARAM, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHDILAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 2. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PUTHOOR BRANCH, PUTHOOR, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 3. N.G.GOPAKUMAR, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, NELLIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ENATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 10271 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the mother of the 3rd respondent is constrained to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition because of the alleged harassment at the hands of the respondents for realisation of the amount stated as due to the 2nd respondent under a loan transaction. The case of the petitioner as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2 are the ancestral property of the petitioner and the movables kept in the petitioner's property have been acquired through her own funds. It is stated that the petitioner, at no point of time had stood as a guarantor to the loan availed by the son 3rd respondent from the 2nd respondent, not had executed any document in favour of the 2nd respondent so as to extend any such facility. Inspite of this, the respondents, particularly the Revenue Authorities, are harassing the petitioner on the strength of Exts.P3 and P4 notices issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act; which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent submits that Exts.P3 and P4 are obviously in the name of 2 WP(C) No.10271/2010 3rd respondent and that the petitioner need not worry about Exts.P3 and P4; as no properties of the petitioner are intended to be proceeded against on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2. The above submission is recorded and the Writ Petition is disposed of, making it clear that no proceedings shall be taken against the petitioner on the strength of Exts.P3 and P4 in respect of the properties of the petitioner covered by Exts.P1 and P2 and the movables kept therein. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 25.03.2010, the petitioner; to prove her bonafides, has already deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- and that the petitioner is ready and willing to have the said amount set off against the liability of the 3rd respondent. This submission is also recorded and the amount deposited by the petitioner shall be given due credit to, in respect of the further liability to be satisfied by the 3rd respondent, who is the son of the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc