PUTHUVALASSERY JAMEELA Vs. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge is in respect of the threat made by the Revenue authorities, on the strength of Ext. P5 Revenue Recovery notice issued in the name of the 4th respondent, who is the son of the petitioner. The 4th respondent allegedly owes some amounts to be satisfied, pursuant to the Award passed by the MACT, Thiroor in the concerned OP(MV) preferred by the claimants in respect of an accident occurred, involving the vehicle belonging to the 4th respondent.

(2.) THE case, as projected in the writ petition, is, that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property in question as covered by Exts. P1 to P4, which is being enjoyed by her with exclusive possession, clear and marketable title, over which her son/4th respondent does not have any interest whatsoever. It is also stated that the 4th respondent is residing elsewhere and the property belonging to the petitioner is not liable to be attached by the Revenue authorities for any amount allegedly due from the 4th respondent under any transaction. It is also stated that the petitioner is not a defaulter in any manner and she was never stood as a guarantor to the 4th respondent nor does she have any connection with the vehicle or the accident involved.

(3.) THE Writ Petition is allowed. No cost.