PARUKUTTY, W/O. NARAYANAN, NEDIYAVILA VEEDU, AATTUVASSERI, KULAKADA VILLAGE Vs. BOBY, CHEMBAKASSERI VEEDU, MANDACKAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 192 of 1998 on the file of the Family Court, Kottarakkara. The above suit was decreed for a substantial amount exceeding Rs. 6 lakhs against the petitioner and the other defendants, respondents 2 and 3, her son and husband respectively. The suit was instituted by the first respondent, Boby, petitioner's daughter-in-law, i.e., wife of the 2nd respondent. The first respondent filed E.P. No. 25 of 2005 for realisation of the decree debt by attachment and sale of the properties. A total extent of 54 cents of land apparently belonging to the petitioner was attached. In the above execution proceedings 11 cents of land together with a residential building was proclaimed for sale. This was following the proceedings initiated under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure for settlement of the proclamation. The petitioner who was served with notice under Order 21 Rule 66 of CPC did not raise any objections to the availability or sale ability of her property at that stage. Ext. R1 (g) is the statement of objections filed by the petitioner. Though several contentions are raised it is not contended that the property is not liable to be attached or sold in view of any of the exemptions provided under Section 60 of the CPC. The property was purchased in auction by the first respondent herself as the highest bid was offered by the first respondent, though the daughter of the petitioner also participated in the action. It is at that juncture that the petitioner filed Ext. P2 application raising the contention that the petitioner is a domestic servant and her residential building and four cents of land immediately appurtenant to the residential building is not liable to be attached. The main grievance foisted by the petitioner in this original petition is that the execution court has not disposed of Ext. P2 in accordance with law. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent to the original petition. He has produced documents Exts. R1(a) to R1(k). We have considered the rival pleadings. We have heard Sri. Subhash Syriac, learned counsel for the petitioner and Arun S. Raj, learned counsel for the first respondent in detail. We do find some force in the submissions of Sri. Arun S. Raj that the petitioner who did not raise the contention in Ext. R1(g) that the property in question is not liable to be sold or attached in view of S. 60(c), is not entitled to raise contentions regarding the attach ability and sale ability of the property at a later stage. On the basis of the impressions that we gather by the perusal of the entire materials available before us and also through the submissions of the learned counsel at the bar, we are of the view that the version of the petitioner who admits at some point of time she had 1.244 cents of land and whose son the 2nd respondent has availed a substantial amount by way of loan from the Kerala State Financial Corporation on the basis of the mortgage of 70 cents of land was given to him by none other than the petitioner that she is a domestic servant is highly improbable. Whatever that be, as the Family Court has not so far disposed of Ext. P2 we dispose of this original petition directing the Family Court, Kottarakkara to take up Ext. P2 immediately, complete the enquiry, if any, into the same within a period of one month, hear both sides and finally dispose of Ext. P2 without delay. The learned judge of the Family Court to ensure that Ext. P2 is finally disposed of within a period of 2 months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then dispossession of the petitioner from the property in question will be kept in abeyance by the learned Judge of the Family Court.

(2.) The O.P.(FC) is disposed of as above.