IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31198 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEEBA, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, MANAPPURATH HOUSE, MADAPLATHURUTH MURI, MOOTHAKUNNAM VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, MOOTHAKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 31198 OF 2008 L -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th October, 2008 JUDGMENT Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner has purchased 14 cents of property in Survey No.249/14 of Moothakunnam Village from one Shri Jose Rocha as per Ext.P1. It is stated that on 31.7.2008, the second respondent Village Officer and his employees came to the property of the petitioner and told her that they are going to attach the property and the movables in the house in connection with the arrears towards the Kerala Motor Transport Workers' Welfare Fund due from her husband. That was objected. Petitioner submitted an application before the second respondent narrating the facts and requesting him not to proceed against her property for the arrears due from husband. But, due to dismay of the petitioner, the second respondent and his employees came to her property again on 13.10.2008 for attaching the same. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner WPC. 31198/08 L 2 and the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader would submit that as far as the immovable property is concerned, being the property which is purchased by the petitioner from another person and the said property of the petitioner will not be attached. As far as the movables are concerned, it is certainly open to the respondents to attach the movables belonging to the husband of the petitioner and if an attachment is made and if the petitioner has a claim that the property belongs to her, in view of the decision of this Court in M.S.Khadija v. Dy. Tahsildar (Revenue), Kottayam (1974 KLT SN 3. OP No.3073/72), it will be open to the petitioner to raise a claim against any attached movables which belong to her. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge