IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19530 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BEENA BHASI, AGED 41 YRS., W/O.BHASI, NOW RESIDING AT TEMPLE AVENUE, AYYANTHOLE, TRISSUR-680 003. BY ADVS. SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL SMT.C.S.RAJANI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE TRISSUR DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, TRISSUR. 68001 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TAHSILDAR (RR) OFFICE, TRISSUR-680 020. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYANTHOLE VILLAGE, TRISSUR. 68001 4. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REP. BY ITS MANAGER, TRISSUR SME BRANCH, TRISSUR.68001 R1-3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN R4 BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SC SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19530 of 2011(M) ------------------------------------ APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF BHASI. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.354/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.368/2010 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE COUNTR TO THE IMPLEADING PETITION IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.354/010 EXT.P5. COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 7 DT. .22.03.2011 EXT.P6. COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 34 DT.22.03.2011 EXT.P7. COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 7 DT.18.03.2011 EXT.P8. COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 34 DT.18.03.2011 EXT.P9. COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 3624/1996 EXT.P10. COPY OF THE WILL NO.250/III/2008 EXT.P11. COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTD BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR EXT.P5 & P6. EXT.P12. COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITINER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR EXT.P7 & P8. RESPNDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 19530 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the 4th respondent through respondents 1 to 3 for recovery of loan amounts due from the petitioner's husband, who is no more, to the 4th respondent. Suits have been filed by the 4th respondent for recovery of the amounts which are pending. According to the petitioner, the recovery proceedings are bad for two reasons. First is that the recovery is time barred. Second is that the petitioner has not inherited any property on the death of her husband and therefore the respondents cannot proceed against the property belonging to the petitioner, which is the settled law. The standing counsel for the bank, on instructions, submits that the suits are not barred by limitation as contended by the petitioner. According to them, appropriate acknowledgment letters have already been obtained from her husband and therefore there is no merit in the contention that the suit is time barred. Standing counsel also disputes the contention that the properties proceeded against are not properties devolved by succession on the petitioner from her husband. 2. I am of opinion that for proving both the contentions of the petitioner evidence has to be adduced since the bank disputes the same. That can be done only W.P(C) No. 19530 of 2011 -: 2 :- in a suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner raises an apprehension that a suit, if filed, may not be entertained since the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act ousts the jurisdiction of the civil court against revenue recovery proceedings. I am of opinion that although the petitioner cannot challenge the revenue recovery proceedings as such, nothing prevents the petitioner from filing a suit against the bank challenging the demand by the bank for payment of the amounts and getting an injunction. If the civil court grants an injunction, naturally the recovery proceedings cannot go on. As such, I do not find any merit in the apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner . Therefore, I am of opinion that the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing a suit for injuncting the bank from proceeding against the properties stated to be belonging to the petitioner. Therefore, without prejudice to this right, this writ petition is dismissed. However, to enable the petitioner to file a suit and move for appropriate interim orders, I direct that further proceedings for recovery of the amounts shall be kept in abeyance for one month. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/