Joby M.D vs Federal Bank Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 16232 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943
                          EX.FA NO. 2 OF 2020
        AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 214/2006 OF PRINCIPAL SUB
                     COURT,IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR
APPELLANT:

             JOBY M.D.
             AGED 43 YEARS
             S/O. MANIYAKKU DEVASSY, VENDOOR DESOM, AMBALLUR
             VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

             BY ADV T.N.MANOJ


RESPONDENTS:
     1     FEDERAL BANK LTD
           MANNAMPETTA BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 680 325,
           THRISSUR DISTRCIT.

    2        LISSY JOSEPH,
             AGED 49 YEARS
             W/O. LATE JOSEPH MANIYAKKU HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA DESOM
             P.O. VARAKKARA AMBALLUR, VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
             680 325.

    3        FEMI JOSEPH,
             AGED 28 YEARS
             D/O. LATE JOSEPH, MANIYAKKU HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA DESOM
             P.O. VARAKKARA, AMBALLUR, VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
             680 325.

    4        FEBIN JOSEPH,
             AGED 24 YEARS
             S/O. LATE JOSEPH MANIYAKKU HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA DESOM
             P.O. VARAKKARA AMBALLUR, VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
             680 325.

             SRI. LEO GEORGE - SC


     THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 EX.FA NO. 2 OF 2020
                                    2

                              JUDGMENT

I had delivered a judgment in this case on 06.03.2020,

dismissing the appeal; but the appellant thereafter filed

R.P.No.471/2021 which was allowed by this Court and it is

consequent thereto that this matter is being considered by me.

2. Before I tread forward, I must record that the learned

counsel for the rival parties expressly prayed that this matter be

heard today itself and a new judgment delivered, because the

internecine disputes between their clients have now been fully

settled out of Court.

3. Sri. T.N.Manoj - learned counsel appearing for the

appellant, submitted that, pending this lis, his client has entered

into an amicable settlement with respondents 2 to 4 - who are the

owners of the plaint schedule property - and that they have agreed

that the sale conducted by the Bank in O.S.No.214/2006, on the

files of the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, can be set aside, so

that the title documents can be returned to his client by the Bank. EX.FA NO. 2 OF 2020

He added that the entire money due to the Bank has been now

paid and therefore, that nothing stops this Court from allowing

E.A.No.1017/2014, which is the claim petition filed by his client,

on the strength of the assertion that he had purchased the plaint

schedule property for valuable consideration. He thus prays that

the afore appeal be allowed.

4. Sri.Leo George, the learned counsel for the respondent

- Bank, affirmed the afore submissions of Sri.T.N.Manoj to the

extent that the entire amount due to his client has been received,

but added that this has been paid not by the appellant, but by

respondents 2 to 4. He, thus, submitted that if this Court is so

inclined, his client will have no objection in this appeal being

allowed, consequent to which E.A.No.1017/2014 in

O.S.No.214/2006 on the files of the Principal Sub Court,

Irinjalakuda, can stand ordered, so that the title documents can be

handed over to the appellant by his client. He, however, prayed

that, before doing so, this Court may also require the respondents

2 to 4 to approach the Bank with a proper request and to be EX.FA NO. 2 OF 2020

personally present in the branch when the title documents are

handed over by them to the appellant.

5. Sri.Ravi.K.Priyarath - learned counsel appearing for

respondents 2 to 4, submitted that an affidavit has been filed by

his clients before this Court, agreeing that this appeal can be

allowed and the title documents of the property handed over to

the appellant. He submitted that his clients will have no objection

in proceeding to the Bank at the time when the title documents

are handed over to the petitioner and he agreed that the afore

suggestion of Sri.Leo George be acceded to by this Court.

6. The sum total of the afore submissions of the learned

counsel of the parties would show that there is presently no

dispute between them; and that respondents 2 to 4, who are the

owners of the plaint schedule property, have agreed that the title

documents relating to it can be handed over by the Bank to the

appellant. Indubitably, therefore, they have no objection in the

sale transaction claimed by the appellant, with respect to the

property in question, be granted sanction by this Court. EX.FA NO. 2 OF 2020

In the afore circumstances, I allow this appeal and set aside

the order of the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda; thus,

consequently, allowing E.A.No.1017/2014 filed by the appellant.

Needless to say, since the sale thus stands set aside, the

Bank will now hand over the original documents of the plaint

schedule property in question to the appellant; however, on

condition that respondents 2 to 4 will make a request for the same

before them and will also be personally present when they are

physically handed over and subject to their acknowledgment of

the same.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/04/08/2021