Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3022 Ker
Judgement Date : 17 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 29742 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
BIJU V.S.
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.SIVAN, VETTUKALLUMAKAL(H), RAJAKKAD.P.O,
RAJAKKAD, IDUKKI-685566.
BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA,
PAINAV.P.O, IDUKKI-685603.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
RAJAKKAD-KUTHUMKAL-MAILADUMPARA ROAD,IDUKKI-685566.
3 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNION BANK OF INDIA, RAJAKKADU BRANCH, RAJAKKAD,
IDUKKI-685566.
4 V.P.SAJEEV,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.PRABHAKARAN, VETTUKALLUMAKAL(H),
RAJAKKAD.P.O, RAJAKKAD, IDUKKI-685566.
BY ADVS.
ASP.KURUP
C.P.ANIL RAJ
SADCHITH.P.KURUP
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.MABLE C,KURIAN SR G.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 29742 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he purchased the
property involved in this case through Ext.P1 from
its vendor, after confirming that there were no
liabilities thereon and particularly being assured by
Ext.P6 certificate issued by the Union Bank of India,
in favour of whom a mortgage on it had been earlier
created to secure a loan availed of by the said
person.
2. The petitioner says that even though Ext.P1
was registered without demur, when he presented the
same for transfer of Registry of the property in his
favour, the 2nd respondent - Village Officer refused
to accede to it saying that he has received a letter
from the Bank on 26.11.2021, asserting that there is
a subsisting charge on the property. He says that
said Officer thereupon issued Ext.P8 indicating this
and therefore, that he has been left without any
other option but to challenge it before this Court.
3. Shri.L.Rajesh Narayan Iyer - learned counsel WP(C) NO. 29742 OF 2021
appearing for the petitioner, explained that the
vendor of the property appear to have earlier availed
of a loan from the Union Bank of India, which was
closed and the original title documents released to
him. He says that this is expressly admitted by them
in Ext.P6, but that when his client presented Ext.P1
for transfer of Registry of the property in question,
the Bank appears to have issued a letter on
26.11.2021 saying that they have a further charge
over the property, but not on the strength of an
equitable mortgage. He explained that even this
letter was issued after Ext.P1 had been registered on
11.11.2021; and therefore, that the Bank cannot claim
any further rights on the property in question. He
thus reiteratingly prayed that the 2nd respondent -
Village Officer be directed to effect transfer of
Registry of the property in his client's favour
without any further delay.
4. Shri.Sadchith Kurup - learned Standing Counsel
for the Union Bank of India, submitted that a
statement has been filed on behalf of his client, WP(C) NO. 29742 OF 2021
wherein, they have produced Annexure R3B to show that
a revenue recovery requisition had been made by them
to the Revenue Authorities on 03.12.2021. He
submitted that, apart from the loan which is
mentioned in Ext.P6, the vendor had taken another,
which can be recovered only by proceeding against the
property in question. He, therefore, prayed that this
writ petition be dismissed.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader -
Smt.Mable C.Kurian, submitted that the Village
Officer is now caught between the rival contentions;
and therefore, incapacitated from acceding to the
request of the petitioner. She, however, added that
said Authority will abide by any directions to be
issued by this Court in this writ petition.
6. I have evaluated the afore submissions and
have also seen the materials available on record.
7. Even going by the Union Bank of India, the
letter of requisition for revenue recovery, namely
Ext.R3B was issued only on 03.12.2021. This is WP(C) NO. 29742 OF 2021
certainly after Ext.P1 was registered on 11.11.2021
and hence unless they are able to establish that they
have a primary charge over the property, either
through a mortgage or otherwise, I fail to fathom how
they can contend that petitioner is not entitled to
have the property covered by Ext.P1 transferred in
Registry in his favour. This is more so because, as
rightly stated by Shri.Rajesh Narayan Iyer, Ext.P1
has been registered without demur based on Ext.P6 -
No Objection Certificate issued by the Bank
themselves, wherein, they have expressly admitted
that the loan availed of by the vendor had been
closed and the original title documents returned to
him.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ
petition and direct the 2nd respondent - Village
Officer to accede to the request of the petitioner
for transfer of Registry of the property covered by
Ext.P1 in his favour, subject to all other statutory
requirements being complied, but de hors Ext.R3B, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two WP(C) NO. 29742 OF 2021
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/17.3 WP(C) NO. 29742 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29742/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1851/1/2021 DATED 11.11.2021 OF SRO RAJAKUMARI
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA DATED 27.2.2016
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.8.2021
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 30.9.2018.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.6.2017
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26.2.2020
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.10.2021
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.728/2021 DATED 10.12.2021.
RESPONDENT EXHIBIT
ANNEXURE R3A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE BANK ON 26.11.2021 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE R3B TRUE COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY REQUISITION DATED 3.12.2021 GIVEN 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!