Breen Babu vs 1. The Kerala State Financial ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9039 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
  WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
                   WP(C) NO. 23688 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          BREEN BABU
          AGED 42 YEARS, S/O BABU MOHAN,
          RESIDING AT MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM,
          ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 686664
          BY ADVS.
          UMMUL FIDA
          C.IJLAL
          R.UDAYA KUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES (KSFE) LTD
          EDAPPALLY BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR, PALLIPADAN THERESA
          CENTRE, MARKET RD, NEAR M.A.J. HOSPITAL, TOLL
          JUNCTION, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, KERALA , REPRESENTED
          BY THE BRANCH MANAGER., PIN - 682024
    2     THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES (KSFE) LTD
          KOLLAM BEACH ROAD BRANCH, NH208, KADAPAKKADA,
          KOLLAM, KERALA , REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH
          MANAGER, PIN - 691008
    3     THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES (KSFE) LTD
          REGIONAL OFFICE ERNAKULAM URBAN, KSFE BHAVAN",
          MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD (PO), ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED
          BY MANAGER, PIN - 682030
          BY ADV SHRI.SALIL NARAYANAN K.A., SC, KSFE LTD.


    THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.23688/2023

                                      2



                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                     --------------------------------
                    W.P.(C).No.23688 of 2023
              ----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2023


                             JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

I. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to accept the Exhibit P1 as security to sanction the amount;

II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents not to insist for the original will to sanction amounts;

III. Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced by the petitioners in this case;

IV. such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(SIC)

2. Petitioner is a subscriber of multiple chitty in the

Kerala State Financial Enterprises (KSFE) Ltd. The 1 st

petitioner is in possession and ownership of 66.76 ares of

landed property in Survey Nos. 573/10A, 573/10B and 573/9 in WP(C).No.23688/2023

Piravom Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, Ernakulam District. The

aforementioned property was transferred to the petitioner's

name as per the will Deed No.88/III/2004 of Piravom SRO

dated 07/07/2004 created by the grandfather of the petitioner

Mr. Kuriako. The petitioner had filed Probate O.P.No.179/2006

on the file of District Court, Ernakulum and the petitioner is

the administrator of the property. The petitioner is subscriber

to a chitty in the 1st respondent with Chitty No.46/2022/A/1 as

Chittal No.21 for Chitty sala of Rs.2 lakhs. The petitioner had

applied for an amount of Rs.1 lakh as loan from the same. The

petitioner has also subscribed to a chitty in the 2 nd respondent

branch with Chitty No.82/2023/A/1 as Chittal No.32 for a

Chitty sala of Rs.1 crore and the chitty has been prized for

Rs.70 lakhs to the petitioner. The petitioner intends to keep

the same property covered by Ext.P1 as security for the

amount to be availed from the respondents. An objection is

raised on the probate produced by the petitioner and he is

directed to produce the original will in order to accept the

same as security. Even thought the petitioner submitted an

application before the court below for getting the original Will, WP(C).No.23688/2023

the same was declined and hence that petition was not

pressed. Hence this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Standing Counsel for KSFE.

4. This Court perused Ext.P1. The main grievance of

the Standing Counsel for KSFE is that there are several

conditions prescribed in Ext.P1 and the respondents are not

aware whether those conditions are complied. This Court

directed the petitioner to file an affidavit. Accordingly the

petitioner filed an affidavit. It will be better to extract the

same:

"3. The petitioner is in possession and ownership of 66.76 ares of landed property in Survey No. 573/10A, 573/10B and 573/9 in Piravom Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk, Ernakulam District. The aforementioned property was transferred to the petitioner's name as per the will Deed No. 88/III/2004 of Piravom SRO dated 07/07/2004 created by the grandfather of the petitioner Mr. Kuriako. The petitioner had filed Probate O.P. 179/2006 on the files of District Court Ernakulum and the petitioner is the administrator of the property.

4. The petitioner is having various chitty at KSFE. The petitioner intends to keep the same property as security for the amount to be availed from the WP(C).No.23688/2023

respondents by producing the probate order. An objection is raised on the probate produced by the petitioner and he is directed to produce the original will in order to accept the same as security. Hence the above writ petition was filed.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner has complied with all the directions prescribed in Exhibit P1 regarding the preparation of inventories and credits of the property and submission before the court below. The petitioner has also complied with all further directions of the court below with regards to the rendering of the accounts and credits of the property. The petitioner is the rightful executor and administrator of the property finalised in Exhibit P1 proceedings.

6. The petitioner further submits that the property has not been kept as security for any other mortgage at present and is free of encumbrances."

5. In the light of the same, I think the respondents can

accept Ext.P1 as security provided that the petitioner will

comply the conditions in Ext.P1.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the

following manner:

1. The respondents are directed to accept Ext.P1 as

security to sanction the amount, on condition WP(C).No.23688/2023

that the petitioner will report before the

concerned District Court about pledging the

property.

2. Based on the same, the respondents will

disburse the amount to the petitioner.

sd/-

                                               P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV                                                    JUDGE
 WP(C).No.23688/2023





                 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23688/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1       A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

28/08/2009 IN PROBATE O.P. 179/2006 ON THE FILES OF DISTRICT COURT ERNAKULUM Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 02/04/2003 Exhibit P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 23/02/2023 Exhibit P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29/03/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P-5 .A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL REPORT DATED 05/06/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/05/2023 IN I.A NO. 1 OF 2023 IN PROBATE O.P. NO. 179/2006 ON THE FILES OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT ERNAKULAM