LAWS(KER)-1971-6-22

NARAYANI AMMA KARTHIYAYANI AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On June 15, 1971
NARAYANI AMMA KARTHIYAYANI AMMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner. The third respondent, the Multi-purpose Cooperative Society Ltd. No. 1240, Kulasekharapuram, obtained an award against the first petitioner for a sum of Rs. 826, and against the 2nd petitioner for a sum of Rs. 698. The second respondent, the Sales Officer, District Cooperative Bank, Quilon issued a notice of demand Ext. P-1 to the first petitioner and a notice of demand Ext. P-2 to the second petitioner calling upon them to pay the respective amounts due from each of them. This was followed by attachment of certain moveables belonging to the first petitioner, and certain immovable properties belonging to the petitioners. Exts. P-3 and P-4. both dated 28-6-1969, are the attachment schedules. Both these attachments were made for recovery of the aggregate amounts due under the aforesaid two awards. The above action was taken by the second respondent under S.76 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner contends that this section is unconstitutional, as it is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution and that the attachments as per Exts. P-3 and P-4 are also bad, as the petitioners have no joint liability for the amounts payable under the two awards, and each of them is liable only for the amount due from her under the particular award against her. This writ petition has been filed to declare that S.76 of the Act is unconstitutional, to quash Exts. P-1 to P-4 and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) It is necessary to read S.76 of the Act for dealing with petitioners' first contention.

(3.) The petitioners are entitled to succeed on their second contention, namely, Exts. P-3 and P-4 are bad since they relate to the aggregate of the two debts payable by the two petitioners separately. The first petitioner is entitled to get the attachment released on payment of the amount due from her. Similarly the second petitioner is entitled to get her property or her Interest in a joint property released from attachment on payment of the amount due from her. The liabilities are separate and independent The attachment notice Ext. P-3 calls upon the first petitioner to pay aggregate of the two debts which obviously she is not liable to pay. The attachment Ext. P-4 requires each of the petitioners to pay the aggregate of the two debts. As already stated, each of them is not liable for the aggregate amount. The attachment as per Exts. P-3 and P-4 cannot therefore be sustained.