Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance ... vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 15210 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 15210 Ker
Judgement Date : 20 July, 2021

Kerala High Court

Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Finance ... vs State Of Kerala on 20 July, 2021

WP(C) No.24982/2019                         1/4

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                        PRESENT
                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
              Tuesday, the 20th day of July 2021 / 29th Ashadha, 1943
                              WP(C) NO. 24982 OF 2019
   PETITIONER:

          M/S.SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LTD, WHICH WAS FORMELY KNOWN
          AS M/S SUNDARAM HOME FINACE LTD., PRESENTLY WORKING AT ELIZABETH
          ALEXANDER MEMORIAL BUILDING, 11 FLOOR, MARINE DRIVE, COCHIN-31, REP.
          BY AUTHORISED OFFICER AND SENIOR LEGAL OFFICER, SHRI ABU ROSHAN
          ADREWS, AGED 31, S/O.JOSHY CYRIAC

   RESPONDENTS:

      1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
         SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM
      2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE,
         KAPPALANDIMUKKU,MATTANCHERI, KOCHI-682 002
      3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-682 006
      4. K.A.ABUL JABBAR, AGED 47, S/O. K.M.ABOOBACKKAR, C.C.4/1521 A, BERNAD
         COLONY,KUNNUPURAM ROAD, FORTKOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK,
      5. M.M.SHOUKKATH, AGED 42, S/O.M.S.MUHAMMED KUTTY, ERAVELIL FORTKOCHI
         VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM
      6. AUGUSTINE JACKSON, AGED 42, S/O. PETER DOURAV, MALIAKKAL HOUSE,
         NAMBIAPURAM DESOM, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI TALUK
      7. GREENY JACKSON AGED 39, W/O.AUGUSTINE JACKSON, MALIAKKAL HOUSE,
         NAMBIAPURAM DESOM, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI TALUK




         Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
   stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
   pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to forthwith erase the attachment
   effected through I.A.No.635/2016 in O.S.No.41/2016 on the files of Sub Court
   Kochi in relation to the below scheduled properties from the entries of the
   sub registry and entries of the village office, in the interest of justice.




        This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
   the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
   SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE, Advocate for the petitioner and of GOVERNMENT
   PLEADER for R1 to R3, the court passed the following:
 WP(C) No.24982/2019                  2/4

                       APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24982/2019
EXHIBIT P7            TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)
                      NO.21690/2018 AND 21691/2018
EXHIBIT P9            TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2018
                      PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
 WP(C) No.24982/2019                                      3/4




                               P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                         -------------------------------
                       W.P.(C)Nos.24982 and 24988 of 2019
                        --------------------------------
                           Dated this the 20th day of July 2021

                                                      ORDER

This Court as per Ex.P7 judgment, issued the

following directions:

"Thereafter, after hearing both sides, the nd 2 respondent SRO will decide the factual issue as to whether the impugned attachment orders concerned in these two cases have been effected after the mortgage in question. If it is found that the attachment orders have been effected after the mortgage in these cases, then the 2nd respondent SRO will take necessary steps to efface those attachments from the relevant records, as otherwise those attachments would remain as a permanent taboo prejudicially affecting the marketability and title to the property, even though they ceased to have legal efficacy, as held by this Court in Madhan's case supra. Necessary opportunity of hearing may also be afforded to the parties concerned which may be effected within 10 days after the receipt of the applications from the petitioner. Appropriate orders as aforestated should be passed by the 2nd respondent SRO within 2 weeks from the date of conclusion of the said hearing.

Further, it is also made clear that it will also open to the petitioner to file such separate applications before the competent revenue official concerned. If he has any grievances in that matter, which may also be considered by such competent authority, after hearing the WP(C) No.24982/2019 4/4

W.P.(C)Nos.24982 & 24988 of 2019

necessary parties and in the light of the above said dictum laid down by this Court in Madhan's case supra reported in 2014(1)KLT 406.

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition(Civil) will stand finally disposed of."

2. Now Ext.P9 order is passed, in which it is

stated that the mortgage executed by the parties are

not proper. If the authority who passed Ext.P9

order is aggrieved by the directions in Ext.P7

judgment, his remedy is to file a review or appeal.

He cannot pass an order like Ext.P9. According to

me, this is prima facie contempt and a case of

flouting the directions of this Court. The 2nd

respondent will file an affidavit explaining the