C MATHU AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ appeal is to order dated 20th December, 2005 in O.P.No.21062 of 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant before us is the second petitioner in the original petition filed by her son challenging Exts.P3 and P4. The son of the appellant had purchased 0.5670 hectare of land in Kuthanur Village as per the sale deed Ext.P1 from the additional 5th respondent. It is the case of the appellant that eversince he purchased the property it is in their possession and prior to the sale of the property the 5th respondent offered it as solvency for the conduct of toddy shop. Since there was failure on the part of 5th and 6th respondents, proceedings were initiated by respondents 1 to 3 and for that purpose Exts.P3 and P4 were issued. In such circumstances, it is the case of the appellant that late Karunakaran approached this Court by filing the original petition for quashing Exts.P3 and P4 which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment. It is clear from a reading of the impugned judgment and still from the arguments also that what the learned counsel pleads at this stage is that the recovery proceedings were opposed on the plea of limitation. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the issue observed as follows:

(2.) Assuming that the appellant did not concede that the liability was covered by mortgage and concession was only with regard to proceedings having been initiated within twelve years, it shall have to be shown that the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the liability is covered by mortgage is incorrect. No material at all has been placed on record that may detract from the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. If the liability was covered by mortgage, the plea of limitation would fail. The proceedings could be initiated within twelve years. There is no merit in the writ appeal, which is hereby dismissed.

(3.) At this stage learned counsel states that the appellant be given three months time to make payment of the arrears of toddy workers welfare fund contribution and the property be not sold within that time. The request made by the counsel is accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case and also for the reason that the same has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.