Anil Kuruvilla vs State Bank Of India Sbi
2022 Latest Caselaw 9628 Ker

W.P(C) .26794/22                       1



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
       THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
                           WP(C) NO. 26794 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

              ANIL KURUVILLA
              AGED 53 YEARS
              S/O.KURUVILLA, KATTOTTIL PALANTHERA HOUSE,
              PADINJATTOTHARA MURI,
              KUTTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689105
              BY ADVS.
              PRAVEEN K. JOY
              E.S.SANEEJ
              M.P.UNNIKRISHNAN
              M.K.SAMYUKTHA
              N.ABHILASH
              DEEPU RAJAGOPAL
              SANDRA S.KUMAR


RESPONDENT/S:

      1       STATE BANK OF INDIA SBI
              IZHINJILLAM BRANCH, THIRUVALLA TALUK,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 689107
      2       THE CHIEF MANAGER (ADVANCES)
              STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGION - IV,
              ZONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
      3       ANIL THOMAS
              S/O.THOMAS,
              KULANGARA HOUSE, IZHINJILLAM MURI,
              KAVUMBHAGOM VILLAGE,
              THIRUVALLA TALUK, PIN - 689105
      4       SONY THOMAS
              S/O.THOMAS,
              KULANGARA HOUSE, IZHINJILLAM MURI,
              KAVUMBHAGOM VILLAGE,
              THIRUVALLA TALUK, PIN - 689105
      5       JOSE ANTONY THOTTASSERY
              S/O.ANTONY, THOTTASSERIL HOUSE,
              LAIKKADU, PERUNNA.P.O.,
              CHANGANASSERY, PIN - 686102
 W.P(C) .26794/22                     2


              BY ADVS.
              JACOB P.ALEX
              JOSEPH P.ALEX
              MANU SANKAR P.
              AMAL AMIR ALI


OTHER PRESENT:

              0
              ADV. T SETHUMADAHAVAN (R1 AND R2), ADV. RAJU JOSEPH (R3
              AND R4), ADV. JACOB P ALEX FOR R5.


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C) .26794/22                           3


                                   JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a limited relief. He submits

that the interim order granted to him by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in TSA

No.118/2016 (originally numbered as S.A. No.187 of 2010) should be

maintained for a reasonable time to enable the petitioner to approach the Debts

Recovery Appellate Tribunal and to obtain a suitable interim relief. It is the

case of the petitioner that he purchased 6.7 ares of property which formed part

of 18.40 ares of land belonging to respondents 3 and 4, by registered sale deeds

executed in the years 2005 and 2007.

2. The entire extent of property had been mortgaged by respondents

3 and 4 with the State Bank of India and on default being committed by

respondents 3 and 4, the property was put to auction under the provisions of

the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act) and the

property was purchased by the 5 th respondent on the basis of a private treaty. It

is the case of the 5th respondent that though the sale took place in the year 2009

and sale certificate was issued to him, the same has not been registered in his

favour owing to the disputes raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that after

a long drawn-out litigation, and after approaching this Court for ensuring early

disposal of the securitisation application filed by the petitioner, the matter was

finally disposed of by the Tribunal on 6.8.2022 finding in favour of the 5 th

respondent and holding that the petitioner has no right over the property as the

sale was subsequent to the mortgage created by respondents 3 and 4. It is

submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank states that

the sale in favour of the petitioner can only be subject to the mortgage in favour

of the respondent bank and on the property being brought to sale, the

petitioner has absolutely no interest in the property.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned counsel for the respondent bank as also the learned respective counsel

appearing for respondents 3 to 5, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can

be disposed of in the following manner:-

1. The respondent bank shall register the sale certificate issued in

favour of the 5th respondent in respect of the entire property

purchased by him. The 5th respondent shall also be entitled to take

possession of the property excluding the area now in possession of

the petitioner by virtue of the sale deeds executed in favour of the

petitioner by respondents 3 and 4;

2. The registration of the sale certificate will be subject to any orders to

be passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the appeal to

be filed against Ext.P2 order, by the petitioner. The registration of

the sale certificate will not prejudice the right of the petitioner to

claim that the property purchased by him should not be affected by

the sale conducted by the respondent bank;

3. The right of the 5th respondent to claim in respect of the property

purchased by the petitioner will be subject to the orders to be passed

by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the appeal to be filed by

the petitioner against Ext.P2 order.

The writ petition will stand disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE okb/ //True copy// P.S. to Judge

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26794/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN IA 729/2010 IN SA NO. 187/2010 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 08.03.2010 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN TSA NO.

118/2016 (SA NO. 187/2010) OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM DATED 06.08.2022, RECEIVED ON 17.08.2022