IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 1242 of 2010 ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2920/2010 Dated 24/05/2010 .................... APPELLANT/ETITIONER ------------------------- RAJAMMA,W/O.RAGHAVAN, VILAYIL VEEDU,THEKKECHERRY, THRIKKARUVA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., DISTRICT OFFICER, OPPOSITE OF S.N.WOMEN COLLEGE,KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT MANAGER. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR(RR), KOLLAM. 3. RAJ KUMAR,S/O.RAGHAVAN, PUTHENPURAYILKADA,KANDARAMKANI WARD, MANTROTHURUTH PO, KOLLAM. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1242 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran, J. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2920 of 2010. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 not to proceed against the lands belonging to the third respondent over which the appellant has a life interest, for realisation of the loan advanced to the third respondent by the first respondent. The learned single Judge while repelling the contentions of the appellant permitted her to clear off the entire liability in ten equal monthly instalments, the first of which was to be remitted on or before 30.6.2010. 2. We heard Sri.C.Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The appellant does not W.A.No.1242 of 2010 - 2 - dispute the fact that she is a guarantor to the loan transaction and that the principal debtor is her son. Since the third respondent principal debtor did not repay the amount, respondents 1 and 2 initiated proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. Ext.P4 notice was thereupon issued under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act demanding payment of the sum of Rs.2,21,246/- together with interest and collection charges. In our opinion, the appellant who is a guarantor to the loan transaction and is jointly and severally liable along with her son cannot be heard to contend that respondents 1 and 2 have no right to proceed against the land over which she has a life interest. In our considered opinion, the learned single Judge has taken care of the interests of the appellant by giving her opportunity to clear off the arrears in ten equal monthly instalments. The principal debtor, the son of the appellant, does not challenge the revenue recovery proceedings. In the circumstances, we are of the considered W.A.No.1242 of 2010 - 3 - opinion that the discretion exercised by the learned single Judge that too in favour of the appellant does not merit interference. We accordingly find no merit in the writ appeal. The writ appeal fails and is dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns