8465/2003, the said property was sold to the petitioner in WP(C) 27667/2003 as per Ext.P2 sale deed dated 26.03.2003. Even though there is a contention for the respondents that the said transaction is pursuant to a fraudulent exercise, this Court does not express anything on merits in this regard. However, this Court cannot but omit to mention that the specific pleading raised in WP(C) 24763/2003 as well as in WP(C) 603/2010 (paragraph 3 of WP(C) 603/2010) is that the property in Kozhikode stood in the name of the petitioner as well as his wife and that the said property was disposed of much earlier by the petitioner and his wife. As a matter of fact, the said statement does not appear to be correct, in so far as Ext.P2 sale deed in WP(C) 27667/2003 is seen executed only by the petitioner in the other two cases and not joining hands with the wife. That apart, the contents of Ext.P2 sale deed also reveal in unequivocal terms that the sole vendor therein was having absolute and exclusive right over the property and in the building situated thereon. In any view of the matter, since this Court does not propose to go into the nature of the transaction, as to whether it was fraudulent or not, but for confining the observations and interference with regard to the legality of the transaction and the sustainability of the steps pursued by the respondents invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act,
