IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17163 of 2007(R) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.KRISHNAN, S/O.CHUDALAMUTHU CHETTIAR, AGED 48 YEARS, KOVIL VILAKAM HOUSE, KOPARAPURA ROAD, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGD.OFFICE, BHADRATHA, P.B.NO.510, MUSUEM ROAD, THRISSUR. 2. MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., PETTA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SILVER JUBILEE BUILDINGS, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. C.M.MOHANDAS, ASSISTANT MANAGER, KSFE, VELLARADA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT TC 29/374, TIRUVATHIRA, KOPRAPURA ROAD, KAITHAMUKKU, PETTA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY MR.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN,SC,K.S.F.E. LTD., R4 BY ADVS. MR.RAM MOHAN.G., MR.G.P.SHINOD, MR.MANU V. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17163/2007-R: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL NO. 249/2000 OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM S.R.O. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DTD. 23/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 44,000/- BY THE PETITIONER TOWARDS THE TWO CHITTY LOANS. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 04/01/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KSFE. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/01/2007 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 28/02/2007 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTING OFFICER OF KSFE. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NUMBERED AS CMP.NO.1075/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL C.J.M. COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.3. DTD. 17/05/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P (C) No. 17163 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner inherited certain properties from his father as per a will registered as document no. 249/2000 of Trivandrum Sub Registrar's Office. Petitioner's father died on 9-7-2006. On 13-10- 2006, an officer of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises came to the house of the petitioner and affixed thereon an attachment notice stating that an amount of Rs.2,37,067/- is due from the petitioner's father being arrears payable to the KSFE towards repayment of Chitty loans. The petitioner's contention is that his father is not liable to repay any chitty loans insofar as he has not availed of any chitty loan from the KSFE. The petitioner would further contend that on enquiry into the matter, the petitioner came to understand that the 4th respondent had executed documents forging the signature of the petitioner's father, which is the basis of the proceedings initiated by the KSFE. Now, the petitioner has been served with a notice for recovery of the amount covered by the two chitties, which are under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(i) to call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext. P7 revenue recovery notice issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; (ii) declare that the respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to proceed against the property measuring 6,500 cents in Sy. No. 471/3-1 of Vanchiyoor Village before the enquiry in to Ext. P3 complaint is completed by the 1st respondent; (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to complete the enquiry into Ext. P3 complaint filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time limit to be prescribed by this Honourable Court; (iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to proceed against the personal property of the 4th respondent for recovery of the dues in respect of Chitty Loan No. 124/00-25-A.” 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the KSFE. Counsel for the KSFE submits that pursuant to a complaint filed by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted in the matter and it was found that the petitioner's father himself came to the office of the KSFE and executed the documents and therefore there is no forgery as contended by the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Insofar as the allegation of the petitioner is of forgery committed by the 4th respondent in the matter of forging the signature of the petitioner's father, the matter cannot be decided in this writ petition since, for that, evidence would have to be adduced, especially since the allegation of forgery is denied by the KSFE. It would be more appropriate for the petitioner to seek his remedy by filing a suit wherein the petitioner can adduce evidence to prove that the signatures contained in the documents are not that of his father. That being so, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a suit challenging the genuineness of the documents relied upon for recovery of money by proceeding against the properties of the petitioner's father, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/