Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 22590 Ker
Judgement Date : 19 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 21019 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
CANARA BANK, TRISSUR WEST PALACE BRANCH, SRI.KRISHNA
BUILDINGS, 1ST FLOOR, WEST PALACE, THRISSUR, PIN -
680020, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BIJIMOLE A.S.
BY ADVS.
AJEESH S.BRITE
SAJU.K.PERUTTY
FRANCIS ASSISI
STEPHY JOSEPH
SEREENA P.A.
RESPONDENTS:
1 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION KERALA, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - KERALA - PIN - 695035.
2 SUB REGISTRAR, NELLAYI SUB REGISTER OFFICE,
SERVICE ROAD, VILLAGE, NELLAYI, KERALA - 680305.
3 SECRETARY, AYYANTHOLE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.
494, AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR - 680003.
4 THRISSUR AUTO CENTER, HPC DEALER, NH 47, MARATHAKKARA,
THRISSUR - 680320.
5 MATHEW , S/O. SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT MANNUMEL HOUSE,
KANDASSANKADAVU P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680613.
6 JAYA JOSE, W/O. GLANNY, RESIDING AT CHEMMANNUR HOUSE,
PULLAZHI P.O, OLARIKKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680012.
7 GLANNY C.J., S/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT CHEMMANNUR HOUSE,
PULLAZHI P.O, OLARIKKARA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680012.
WPC 21019/21
2
8 PAUL DEVASSY CHITTILAPPILY, S/O. DAVASSY
CHITTILAPILLY, RESIDING AT B-603, MAHAVIR
RACHANA, PALM BEACH ROAD, SECTOR 15, C.B.D.
BELAPUR, NAVI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400614.
BY ADVS.
DILIP J. AKKARA
M.R.DHANIL
JISHY P.S.
SR GP SMT AMMINIKKUTTY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 21019/21
3
JUDGMENT
The Canara Bank, which is a Banking Company
constituted under the provisions of Banking Companies
(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, has
approached this Court alleging that the 2nd respondent - Sub
Registrar is unfairly refusing to register Ext.P2 Sale Certificate
issued by them in favour of the 8th respondent, who is the
auction purchaser of a certain property which was brought to
sale by them under the provisions of Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities
Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).
2. Sri.Ajeesh S. Brite - learned Standing Counsel for
the petitioner-Bank, submitted that though the sale was
conducted validly under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act
and though the Ext.P2 was issued in terms of law, the 2nd
respondent has refused to accept it merely saying that there is WPC 21019/21
a mortgage reflected on the property at the instance of the 6th
respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent - Ayyanthole
Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. He vehemently asserted that this
mortgage was subsequently redeemed and that the entire
amount due to the 3rd respondent has been paid off and that it
was only thereafter, his client obtained equitable mortgage over
it on 03.07.2013. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition
be allowed.
3. Smt.K.Amminikutty - learned Senior Government
Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, submitted that since
there is nothing on record to show that the mortgage reflected
in Ext.P3 Encumbrance Certificate, in favour of the 3rd
respondent, has, in any manner, been released and that since
no such document was produced by the petitioner before the
2nd respondent, he was incapacitated from accepting their
version and to register Ext.P2 Sale Certificate.
4. Sri.Dilip J. Akkara - learned counsel for the 4th WPC 21019/21
respondent, submitted that his client has already moved an
application before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal
(DRT for short) to set aside the sale conducted by the Bank;
and therefore, prayed that this Court may not accede to any
relief sought for in this Writ Petition.
5. I notice from the files that even though summons
from this Court have been validly served on respondents 6 and
7, they have chosen not to be present in person or to be
represented through counsel; while summons issued to the 5th
respondent has been returned with the endorsement 'insufficient
address'. However, it is conceded by Sri.Dilip J. Akkara that
respondents 5 to 7 were co-borrowers and guarantors of the
loan availed by his client - the 4th respondent and am,
therefore, of the view that non-service of notice to the 5th
respondent for the above reason would not inhibit me from
disposing of this Writ Petition in the manner that I propose.
6. When I evaluate the rival contentions, it is clear that WPC 21019/21
the only reason now stated by the Sub Registrar in not
accepting and registering Ext.P2 Sale Certificate is that there is
a mortgage ('Gehan') seen to have been executed by the 6th
respondent, who is the owner of the property, in favour of the
3rd respondent-Co-operative Bank. However, the petitioner -
Bank asserts that this mortgage had been released and that it
was, thereafter, that they accepted the equitable mortgage from
the owners and granted a loan facility to the 4th respondent.
7. That said, however, the petitioner-Bank has
produced Ext.P4 certificate issued by the 3rd respondent on
record, which limpidly certifies that the mortgage executed in
their favour earlier has been redeemed and that no amounts are
now due to them. Pertinently, this document has not been
contested by the 4th respondent.
8. In the afore circumstances and taking note of Ext.P4
certificate issued by the 3rd respondent, which remains
unimpeached, I am certainly of the view that the 2nd WPC 21019/21
respondent - Sub Registrar cannot refuse to register Ext.P2 Sale
Certificate, if it is presented before him for registration by the
petitioner - Bank or the 8th respondent, as the case may be.
Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition, leaving liberty to
the petitioner - Bank or the 8th respondent to present Ext.P2
Sale Certificate for registration before the 2nd respondent - Sub
Registrar forthwith; in which event, the said Authority will take
steps for registration of the same, after following due procedure
and after ensuring satisfaction of all necessary criterion and
requirements, adverting to Ext.P4, as expeditiously as is
possible but not later than one week from the date on which
the same is presented in terms of the afore directions.
As a corollary and consequent direction, once Ext.P2 Sale
Certificate is registered, the Sub Registrar will efface the entry
of the earlier mortgage in favour of the 3rd respondent and
issue a fresh Encumbrance Certificate to the petitioner - Bank
or 8th respondent, as the case may be, without any avoidable WPC 21019/21
delay thereafter.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 21019/21
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21019/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF STATUTORY NOTICE
UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFEASI
ACT ON 31.08.2017.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE
AS MANDATED UNDER THE SARFEASI ACT
ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF
THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE OBTAINED FROM THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 13.08.2012.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
17.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!