(1.) Both the writ petitions are with respect to the identical issue. W.P.(C). No. 35005 of 2011 challenges the revenue recovery proceedings initiated, while W.P.(C). No. 6198 of 2012 seeks implementation of the said proceedings. W.P.(C). No. 35005 of 2011 is taken as the leading case and the parties and documents are referred to as stated in the said writ petition. The admitted facts are that, one Janaki died out of an employment injury while employed with one Sankaranarayanan. Sankaranarayanan's daughter-in-law is the petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 35005 of 2011, who seeks to avoid the distress created on the property, which she got conveyed from Sankaranarayanan. The additional 6th respondent in W.P.(C). No. 35005 of 2011, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 6198 of 2012, is the son of the deceased Janaki, one of the claimants before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner.
(2.) The death occurred on 22.02.1998. The son of the deceased, along with other legal heirs, approached the Employee's Compensation Commissioner for compensation and an award dated 19.06.2006 was passed determining an amount of Rs. 1,63,070/- [Rupees one lakh, sixty three thousand and seventy only] with 12% interest from the date of accident, as the compensation. Though the award is not produced in both the writ petitions, it is an admitted fact that it has become final. The issue to be considered is whether the recovery proceedings can be proceeded against the daughter-in-law of the employer, who claims to be a bona fide purchaser of two properties from the employer.
(3.) Sankaranarayanan transferred two items of property to his daughter-in-law by deed Nos. 1456/99 and 1386/06, both of Sub Registrar's Office, Vilayur, dated respectively 22.07.1999 and 10.07.2006; both after the death of Janaki. The daughter-in-law contends that the said purchases were bona fide purchases, for consideration paid to the father-in-law and merely because the vendee is a close relative of the vendor, there can be no distress created on the property.