IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 17066 of 2007(F) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. ANNIE VARGHESE, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O LATE T.K.VARGHESE, THENAMKODATHU HOUSE, MAMAMTHURUTHU, VARAPUZHA. 2. GEORGE VARGHESE, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.T.K.VARGHESE, THENAMKODTHU HOUSE, PUTHUPALLY, VARAPUZHA. 3. SABU VARGHESE, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O T.K.VARGHESE, THENAMKODATHU HOUSE, MAMAMTHURUTHU, VARAPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVOOR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VARAPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17066/2007 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO.2665/1969. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO.1706/1990. EXT.P4: COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE. EXT.P5: COPY OF REPRESENTATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17066/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5 revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners for realisation of the dues from late T.K. Varghese. First petitioner is the wife of the deceased and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children. Late Vargese was an abkari contractor of toddy shops in Mamala and Pazhayannoor excise ranges, during the years 1969-69 and 1969-70. He committed default and recovery proceedings were initiated and according to the petitioner all his properties have been sold in revenue sale. It is stated that, Sri. Varghese expired on 26.3.1980 without leaving any properties to be inherited by his legal heirs. Ext.P1 is the death certificate. WP(c).No.17066/2007 2 2. Exts.P2 and P3 are the title deeds of the properties mentioned therein, in terms of which, the properties belong to the first petitioner. Petitioners contends that in 2007, by Ext.P4 revenue recovery notice an amount of Rs.3,54,982/- was sought to be recovered by proceeding against properties of the petitioners. The contention that is raised before me is that since they have not inherited any estate of the deceased and that the property covered by Exts.P2 and P3 are self acquired properties of the Ist petitioner, they are not liable to be proceeded against for the debt due from late T.K. Varghese. 3. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit in which they have stated that towards the principal, an amount of Rs.57,170/- and towards interest, at the time when the counter affidavit was filed Rs.3,03,815/- was due from the deceased. It is stated that, going by the definition contained in Section 2(e) of the Revenue Recovery Act, defaulter means person from whom arrears of public revenue due on WP(c).No.17066/2007 3 land is due and includes a person who is responsible for payment of such arrears. They also referred to the judgments reported in Janaki V. State of Kerala(1974 KLT 182) and Janakidevi V. State of Krerala(1977 KLT 781)to contend that legal heirs are liable for the debt. 4. The liability of the legal heir to make good the dues of the deceased defaulter cannot be challenged. But then it is the settled position of law that such liability is confined to the estate if any that is devolved on the legal heir. The judgments referred above only deals with the liability of the legal heirs, but those judgment do not say, even in the absence of the property having been devolved on the legal heir, they are liable to make good of the dues of the deceased. Section 2(e) also does not make any change in the liability of the legal heir. In this case it is the specific case of the petitioners that they have not inherited any property of the deceased and that the properties covered by Exts.P2 and P3 are the self acquired properties of the first WP(c).No.17066/2007 4 petitioner. 5. In view of the legal position as above, if the petitioners have not inherited the property of the deceased, they cannot be proceeded against and it is so declared. Therefore Ext.P4 is quashed. 6. However, it is clarified that it will be open to the respondents to conduct necessary enquiries and if it is disclosed that the petitioners have inherited any property from the deceased defaulter viz, T.K. Varghese, it will be open for them to initiate such action as is permissible in law for recovering the abkari dues of the deceased. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.17066/2007 5