IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 5401 of 2005(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.JAYAMOHANAN NAIR, MANGALYA, CHERUVAKKAL, SREEKARIAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, MUMBAI. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (RR), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUVAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. NITHYANANDA NAIR @ NITHYANANDAJI, VALIYAPARAKKAL VEEDU, PURAVOORKONAM, KARAKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) FOR R1 R2 AND R3 BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.11.1995 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED DATED 18.1.1996 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FORM NO.10 EXT.P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER FORM NO.1 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 8.2.2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 5401 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging recovery proceedings initiated against fourth respondent's property on the ground that property originally transferred to fourth respondent by the petitioner vide Ext.P1 was cancelled vide Ext.P2 deed. Petitioner has not explained the circumstances under which transfer was cancelled later. In the first place, a transfer cannot be cancelled by the transferor because settlement has taken effect and fourth respondent, who availed loan, was proceeded against by attachment of the property. W.P. is therefore devoid of any merit and is dismissed leaving freedom to respondents 1 to 3 to proceed against the property as the cancellation deed executed is only to defeat the claim of the first respondent. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2