N.Thankappan vs Ksfe And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 19185 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
    TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 19737 OF 2009


PETITIONER:

          N.THANKAPPAN
          KOODALLOORKONAM, MALAYADI, PALUKAL VILLAGE, VILAVANCODE
          TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
          SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,
          REGISTERED OFFICE, 'BHADRATHA', THRISSUR-20,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

    2     THE MANAGER
          KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, PARASSALA
          BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

    3     THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R),
          KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, AKSHAYA
          SHOPPING COMPLEX, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
          DISTRICT.

    4     FRANCIS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN
          KANAKUZHY VEEDU, VANNIYACODE, PARASSALA, PARASSALA
          P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

    5     JAYANTHI ALIAS SUGANTHI D/O. MUTHUSWAMY
          KUTTUVELIVILA VEEDU, KARUMANOOR, PARASSALA P.O.,
          NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.BABU VARGHESE (SR.)
          SRI.R.T.PRADEEP -R5
          SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR
 WP(C) NO.19737/2009
                                  2

           SRI.JOHNSON T.JOHN, SC, KSFE LTD.
           SRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD.




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   14.09.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.19737/2009
                                        3




                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
        --------------------------------------
                W.P.(C)No.19737 of 2009
        --------------------------------------
        Dated this the 14th day of September 2021

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the successful bidder in an

auction sale conducted by the 3rd respondent in

respect of 2.28 Ares of land situated in Resurvey

No.480/1-1, Block No.50, Parassala Village,

Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District.

The said property originally belongs to the 4th

respondent. The 4th respondent availed a chitty

loan from the 2nd respondent. Towards the security

of the said loan, the 4th respondent mortgaged the

above property in favour of the 2nd respondent.

Since the 4th respondent committed default in

repaying the loan, respondents 2 and 3 initiated

recovery proceedings by putting the mortgaged

property in public auction. The 3rd respondent WP(C) NO.19737/2009

published advertisement for sale of the said

property in public auction as evident by Ext.P1.

As per Ext.P1 notice, the public auction was

scheduled on 12.05.2008. The earnest money deposit

for participating in the said auction was fixed as

Rs.4,000/-(Rupees Four thousand only). It is the

case of the petitioner that he decided to

participate in the public auction and he remitted

the earnest money for participating in the auction.

In the auction held on 12.05.2008, the petitioner

was the highest bidder and the bid amount was

Rs.77,000/-(Rupees Seventy seven thousand only).

As per the conditions in Ext.P1 notice, the

petitioner remitted 15% of the bid amount ie.

Rs.11,550/-(Rupees Eleven thousand five hundred and

fifty only) on 12.05.2008 itself. Subsequently, as

per the direction of respondents 2 and 3, the

petitioner remitted the remaining bid amount of

Rs.65,450/-(Rupees Sixty five thousand four hundred

and fifty only) on 23.05.2008 as evident by Ext.P2

receipts.

WP(C) NO.19737/2009

2. After the remittance of the entire amount,

the sale was not confirmed in the name of the

petitioner. Subsequently, it was re-auctioned in

the light of certain directions from this Court.

In the re-auction proceedings also, the petitioner

participated. In the re-auction also, the

petitioner was the highest bidder. Hence, in the

re-auction, the sale was confirmed in the name of

the petitioner. The petitioner paid the entire

amount as per the bid. Subsequently, when the

petitioner approached respondents 1 to 3 to execute

the sale deed in the name of the petitioner, there

was delay and in such situation this writ petition

was filed with following prayers:

                   "i)    to issue a writ of mandamus or any
           other      appropriate      writ,        direction      or    order

directing respondents 1 to 3 to execute the sale deed in the name of the petitioner in respect of 2.28 Ares of land in Resurvey number 480/1-1, Block No.50, Parassala Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District forthwith.

ii) to issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." WP(C) NO.19737/2009

3. The petitioner also contented that, he came

to know that the above property was attached in

O.S.No.290/2000 by the Family Court,

Thiruvananthapuram, which was filed by the 5th

respondent against the 4th respondent. 5Th

respondent is the wife of the 4th respondent. There

was some maintenance case pending before the Family

court and there was a decree in favour of the 5 th

respondent and her daughter. In execution of the

decree, the charged property was put up for sale

and the sale was confirmed in the name of the 5 th

respondent. According to the petitioner, there is

first charge to the 1st respondent and therefore the

subsequent attachment and sale based on the decree

by the Family court is unsustainable and the

respondents 1 to 3 are bound to execute the sale

deed in the name of the petitioner.

     4.    Heard      the        learned          counsel        for      the

petitioner,        the    learned           Standing       counsel       for

respondents 1 and 2, the learned Government Pleader

and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. WP(C) NO.19737/2009

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterated his contentions in the writ petition.

The learned counsel submitted that even if the case

of the 5th respondent is accepted, the property

which is purchased by the petitioner in the public

auction is situated in Re-survey No.480/1-1, Block

No.50, Parassala Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk.

According to the learned counsel, the court sale is

in connection with a property situated in Re-survey

No.475/4 of Parassala Village as evident by Ext.P5.

The learned counsel submitted that, in such

situation, there is no problem in registering the

property in Re-survey No.480/1-1 in the name of the

petitioner by respondents 1 to 3.

6. The learned Standing counsel who appeared

for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the 1st

respondent has first charge in the property and

when there was default in paying the loan amount by

the 4th respondent, the auction was conducted in

accordance to law and the sale is confirmed in the

name of the petitioner. The petitioner also paid WP(C) NO.19737/2009

the entire amount due to the 1 st respondent and the

1st respondent is ready to execute the sale deed in

favour of the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent

contented that the 5th respondent is the wife of the

4th respondent. There is collusion between the 4 th

respondent with the petitioner. According to the

learned counsel, the 5th respondent and her daughter

approached the Family court for getting

maintenance. There was a decree in favour of the

5th respondent and her daughter. The property was

attached on 04.07.2000. When there was default in

paying the maintenance amount, the 5th respondent

filed an execution petition as EP No.46/2002 before

the Family court, Thiruvananthapuram. In the

execution proceedings, the 5th respondent purchased

the property with the permission of the court. The

court issued sale certificate. The learned counsel

submitted that it is a clear case in which the

petitioner and the 4th respondent colluded to defeat

the right of the 5th respondent. The learned WP(C) NO.19737/2009

counsel also submitted that the petitioner herein

also filed an application before the Family court

under Section 47 of the CPC against the execution

of the decree. Ext.R5(h) is the application. The

learned counsel takes me through the contents in

Ext.R5(h). It will be better to extract the

contents in Ext.R5(h):

"ടടി നമർ കകേസടിൽ എതടിർകേകടിയയായടി കേയാണുന്ന ഫയാൻസടിസസ് കകേരള കസ്റ്റേറസ് ഫടിനയാൻഷഷൽ എനർപപ്രൈസസസ് ലടിമടിറഡസ് പയാറശയാല ബയാഞടിൽ നടിന്നസ് കലയാൺ എടുതസ് കുടടിശടികേ വരുതടി തടിരടിച്ചടയയാതത വന്നകപയാൾ കകേരള കസ്റ്റേറസ് ഫടിനയാൻഷഷൽ എനർപപ്രൈസസസ് ലടിമടിറഡസ്, റവനന്യൂ റടിക്കവറടി, തഡപന്യൂടടി തഹസടിൽദയാർ 12/05/2008-ൽ ടടിയയാനസ് അവകേയാശതപട പയാറശയാല വടികല്ലേജസ് ററ-സർതവ 480/1-1-ൽ തകേയാണ്ട 2 ആർ 28 സസ്കേക്വയർ മററർ വസ്തുതവ പരസഷമയായടി കലലലം വടിളടിക്കുകേയലം കലലതടി ൽ ഞയാനലം പതങ്കെടുതസ് നടിയമയാനസരണലം കലലലം പടിടടിക്കുകേയലം കലലലം എതന കപരടിൽ സടിരതപടുതടിതരുകേയലം ഞയാൻ കലലസലംഖഷ മുഴുവൻ തകേടടിവച്ചടിട്ടുള്ളതുമയാകുന. എന്നയാൽ വസ്തുവടിതന തസയടിൽ സർടടിഫടിക്കറസ് തന്നസ് വസ്തു എനടിക്കസ് പകേവശലം തരുന്നതടിനസ് കേയാലതയാമസലം ഉണ്ടയായതടിനയാ ൽ കകേരളയാ കസ്റ്റേറസ് ഫടിനയാൻഷഷൽ എനർപപ്രൈസസസ് ലടിമടിറഡ്തനയലം, ടടി നമർ കകേസടിതല ഹർജടിക്കയാരടിതയയലം, എതടിർകേകടിതയയലം, എതടിർകേകടികേളയാക്കടി ബഹുമയാനതപട കകേരള പഹകക്കയാടതടിയടിൽ കകേസസ് ഫയൽ തചെയടിട്ടുണ്ടസ്.

എന്നയാൽ 16-07-2009-ൽ ടടി പടടികേ വസ്തു ബഹുമയാനതപട കകേയാടതടി മുഖയാനടിരലം ഒഴടിപടിച്ചസ് ടടി നമ ർ കകേസടിതല വടിധടി ഉടമയസ് പകേവശലം തകേയാടുക്കുവയാൻ ഉതരവയായടിരടിക്കുന എന്ന വടിവരലം 10-07-09-ൽ

അറടിയവയാൻ ഇടയയായടി. ടടി വസ്തു വടിധടി ഉടമയസ് പകേവശലം പകേമയാറതക്കതല്ലേ. എതന അകനക്വഷണതടിൽ വടിധടി ഉടമ കലലലം പടിടടിച്ചടിരടിക്കുന്ന വസ്തു പയാറശയാല വടികല്ലേജസ് വകേ ററ സ ർകവ്വേ നമർ 475/4-ൽ തകേയാണ്ട 2 ആർ 82 സസ്കേക്വയർ മററർ ആകുന എന്നസ് അറടിയയാൻ കേഴടിഞ. എന്നയാൽ വടിധടി ഉടമ ഒഴടിപടിതച്ചടുക്കയാൻ ശ്രമടിക്കുന്ന വസ്തു എനടിക്കസ് അവകേയാശതപടതയാകുന.

ആകേയയാൽ കകേയാടതടിയടിതല ദയവുണ്ടയായടി ടടി നമർ കകേസടിൽ അവകേയാശ കേകടിയയായ എതന ഭയാഗലം കകേൾക്കുന്നതടിനലം മറ്റുമയായടി 16-07-09-തല ഒഴടിപടിക്കൽ നടപടടി നടതടി വടിധടി ഉടമയസ് പടടികേ വസ്തു പകേവശലം തകേയാടുക്കുന്ന നടപടടി നടിറുതടിവച്ചസ് ഉതരവുണ്ടയാകേണതമന്നസ് അകപകടിക്കുന. അല്ലേയാത പകലം എനടിക്കസ് അപരടിഹയാരഷമയായ കേഷ്ടനഷ്ടങ ൾക്കുലം സങ്കെടതടിനലം ഇടവരുതമനള്ളതുമയാകുന."

WP(C) NO.19737/2009

8. The learned counsel submitted that, in the

light of Ext.R5(h), the writ petition itself is not

maintainable, because the petitioner already

approached the Family court.

9. When this writ petition came up for

consideration on 02.09.2021, this Court directed

the Registry to get a report from the Family court,

Thiruvananthapuram to know about any application

pending before the Family court as stated by the 5th

respondent and if such an application is pending,

the present stage of the same. The Family court

submitted a report and the contents of the report

is extracted hereunder:

"With respect to the above, I may submit the following;

EP.46/2002 in O.S.290/2000 on the file of Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram was filed for executing the decree passed in the above O.S.290/2000. In that case petition schedule property was sold to the decree holder in public auction on 19/10/2006 and the sale was confirmed and as the decree holder submitted that no further steps required in the Execution Petition, it was closed on 20/04/2007. Sale certificate communicated to SRO, Parassala on 18/09/2009. On verification of the records it WP(C) NO.19737/2009

is seen that EA.210/2003 was filed on 28/10/2003 for staying the execution proceedings till the disposal of the petition filed for setting aside the ex-parte decree and that petition was considered on 17/11/2003 to be considered along with the original EP.

Subsequently, EA.99/2009 was filed for delivery of possession of the petition schedule property and that petition is still pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, awaiting stay report from the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C)19737/2009(J). I am submitting this matter for favour of kind consideration."

10. In the light of the above report, it is

clear that the application submitted by the

petitioner is pending before the Family Court as

EA.210/2003. The Family Court also stated that,

subsequently, EA.99/2009 was filed for delivery of

possession of the petition schedule property and

that petition is still pending before the Family

court, Thiruvananthapuram, awaiting stay report

from the Hon'ble High court in W.P.

(C)No.19737/2009. Therefore, it is clear that the

application filed by the petitioner is even now

pending before the Family court.

11. Admittedly, there is an attachment from the WP(C) NO.19737/2009

Family court to the property owned by the 4th

respondent. According to the petitioner, the

property he obtained in the public auction is in a

different survey number compared to the property

involved in the court sale. But, according to the

5th respondent, the property which is auctioned by

the 1st respondent and the property involved in the

court sale is one and the same property. The

identity of the property itself is doubted by the

petitioner on one side and the 5th respondent on the

other side. Any way an application is pending

before the Family court in EP.46/2002. In the

facts and circumstances of this case, I think there

can be a direction to the Family court to dispose

the application within a time frame invoking the

supervisory power of this Court under Article 227

of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, the

petitioner and the 5th respondent can take

appropriate steps in accordance to law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in

the following manner:

WP(C) NO.19737/2009

i) The Family court, Thiruvananthapuram will

dispose all the pending applications in EP.46/2002

in OS.290/2000, as expeditiously as possible, at

any rate, within two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

ii) Based on the orders passed by the Family

court, the petitioner and the contesting

respondents can take appropriate steps in

accordance to law.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

DM WP(C) NO.19737/2009

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19737/2009

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 3.5.2008.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.08.2009.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CORRECTION DEED DATED 24.07.2002.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 17.07.2009.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE DATED 18.03.2008.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.290/2000 DATED 4-7-2000 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.5322/95 DATED 1-6-95.

EXHIBIT R5(C) TRUE COPY OF DECREE DATED 4-7-2000 IN O.S.NO.290/2000.

EXHIBIT R5(D) TRUE COPY OF E.P.NO.46/2002 DATED 4-6-

2002.

EXHIBIT R5(E) TRUE COPY OF NON-ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 21-7-2003.

EXHIBIT R5(F) TRUE COPY OF SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 19- WP(C) NO.19737/2009

10-2006.

EXHIBIT R5(G) TRUE COPY OF DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION FOR REVIEW DATED 19-10-2006.

EXHIBIT R5(H) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE