IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 29857 of 2006(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JALADIN, AGED 44, S/O. AMLAPPAN, RESIDING AT SARI HOUSE, POZHIYOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), K.S.F.E. LTD., NEYYATTINKARA. 2. SREELATHA, AGED 38, W/O. RAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT RADHA BHAVAN, POZHIYOOR, KULATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 3. RADHA, AGED 20, D/O. SREELATHA, RESIDING AT RADHA BHAVAN, POZHIYOOR, KULATHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S. HARIHARAPUTHRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.6.2005 IN OS NO.151 OF 2004 BY THE COURT OF SUB JUDGE, NEYYATTINKARA. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.9.2006 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 29857 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Even though W.P. is pending for the last two years, no counter affidavit or statement is filed by the first respondent. It is not very unusual that cases against KSFE are not handled in a responsible manner. From the records produced in Court, it is clear that recovery proceedings were initiated against second respondent for recovery of arrears due under chitty loans. Petitioner's case is that under a compromise decree, petitioner has right over the property. Strangely, KSFE is not made a party in the civil suit and therefore decree, if any, will not bind the Corporation. If defaulter has entered into any agreement for transfer of property after incurring liability, then civil court decree can be ignored and property can be proceeded against in recovery proceedings. Even though petitioner has relied on Section 23 of the RR Act, and contended that property can be sold only after getting civil court's permission , I do not find any attachment effected by court. On the face of it, decree if any obtained without making 2 KSFE a party to civil suit is absolutely a fraudulent one to evade recovery. Therefore I leave freedom to the petitioner to raise all objections before the first respondent who will consider the same and proceed for sale of the property if decree does not prohibit KSFE from selling the property. W.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3