Allowed

Lucy Sebastian v. the Deputy Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk

Kerala HC4 Jul 2019WP(C)/6652/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Bank not to proceed against the petitioner's share or movable articles of persons uninvolved in the loan transaction, allowing recovery only against the principal debtor's share under the Revenue Recovery Act.

What did the court decide?

Bank directed not to proceed against petitioner's share or movable articles of non-debtors; recovery allowed against principal debtor's share and debtor's movables.

Lucy Sebastian Vs the Deputy Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.6652 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

LUCY SEBASTIAN AGED 64 YEARS W/O. LATE M.O.SEBSTIAN, MUKKUNGAL HOUSE 26/949, KONDUTHURUTHY, THEVARA-682 013

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK KANAYANNUR TALUK, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, ERNAKULAM-682 011

¶11

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ELAMKULAM-682 011

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM-682 011

¶13

4 THE CANANRA BANK, ERNAKULAM SOUTH BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SR.MANAGER, ERNAKULAM SOUTH, KOCHI-682 011

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN SMT.SHAZIA BINT ASHRAF

¶15

SMT.PRINCY XAVIER,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.6652 of 2019

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶21

“i) Call for the records pertaining to Ext.P5 and quash the same by issuing writ of certiorari.

¶22

ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein not to initiate any coercive proceedings against the 1/3^rd share of the property covered by Ext.P1 and movables in the residential building therein, wherein petitioner has absolute co-ownership by interstate succession.

¶23

iii) To issue any other writ or direction appropriate in the circumstances of this case.”

¶24

According to the petitioner, petitioner is having 1/3^rd undivided ownership over the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed in view of the death of her husband and she is residing in the building situated in the aforesaid property and is a senior citizen. By the time in order to recover the loan liability of the children of the petitioner with 4^th respondent bank, Ext.P5 proceedings has been initiated by the 1^st respondent resorting to Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It is thus challenging the revenue recovery action, this writ petition is filed.

¶25

The paramount contention advanced by the learned

¶26

WP(C).No.6652 of 2019

¶27

¶28

Counsel for the petitioner is that, the property is in joint ownership of petitioner as well as the children of one M.O.Sebastian. However, I am informed that one of the children of M.O.Sebastian has taken a loan from the 4^th respondent bank and according to learned Counsel for the bank, they are entitled to proceed as of right against the share held by the principal debtor in respect of the property acquired from his father M.O.Sebastian.

¶29

I have heard respective Counsel across the Bar and also perused the statement filed by the 4^th respondent.

¶30

In my considered view, the issue is guided by Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the bank is entitled as of right to proceed against the extent of property acquired by the son, principal debtor or any other involved in the loan transaction, from the deceased father.

¶31

In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the respondent bank not to proceed against the share held by the petitioner or any other persons, if they are not involved in the loan transaction, and is at liberty to proceed against the share held by the principal debtor/debtors or any guarantor. So far as Section 7 notice is concerned, there will be a direction to

¶32

WP(C).No.6652 of 2019

¶33

¶34

the respondents to ensure that before making any recovery, the movable articles are belonging to the principal debtor or any guarantors involved in the loan transaction alone.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Jm/

WP(C).No.6652 of 2019

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 3817/1992 OF SRO ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELATIONSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 14.01.2015 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF HE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1435/2018 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶45

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF HE DEMAND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT U/S.7 AND U/S.34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 06.09.2018

Lucy Sebastian v. the Deputy Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lucy Sebastian v. the Deputy Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Vs Athul Swamyanath

P.N.Govindan Vs Toby Thomas

M.Asokan Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner

Rise Capital Operative Finance Private Ltd. Vs the Reserve Bank of India

James.K.Mathew, Vs District Collector

Kerala Self Financing Polytechnic College Vs State of Kerala