IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 4259 of 2006(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.D.SAJAN, KOLLERITHARA, PERUMBADANNA, N. PARUR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SMT.VINITHA PRASANNAN SRI.P.ANIYAN SRI.A.S.SACHIN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), TALUK OFFICE, N. PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.4259/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.5096/04 OF PARUR SRO OF THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO.198/7/2 DATED 19/08/2004. P2 : COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.5095/04 DATED 19/08/2004 OF PARUR S.R.O. OF PROPERTY IN SY.NO.203/2/1, 3/1 OF PARUR VILLAGE. P3 : COPY F DEMAND NOTICE NO.C1-964/06/Abk. DATED 29/01/2006 UNDER SECTION 7 ISSUED BYR 2. P4 : COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE NO.C1-964/06/Abk. UNDER SECTION 34 ISSUED BYR 2. P5 : COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 01/04/1994 OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM A.T.KUNJACHAN & ASSOCIATES. P6 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 02/02/2006 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4259 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 7th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings on the ground that property covered by Ext.P1 belongs to him and sale of the same cannot be proceeded for recovery of arrears of abkari dues due from petitioner's mother. However, it is seen from Ext.P2 sale deed that the same is executed by the defaulter along with her husband in favour of their son, who is petitioner herein. The sale deed is executed only on 19/08/2004, which is much after incurring liability by the defaulter. Therefore, the document is obviously sham, which can be ignored, and recovery can be continued by virtue of Section 44 of the Act. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg