Asokan vs Canara Bank
2023 Latest Caselaw 1685 Ker

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
            FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 7TH MAGHA, 1944
                             WP(C) NO. 2008 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:

     1        ASOKAN
              AGED 51 YEARS
              S/O RAKHAVANACHARI, ASHOKA BHAVANAM, PERUMKULAM P.O,
              PERIMKULAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691566
     2        RANI LEKSHMI
              AGED 16 YEARS
              D/O. ASOKAN, ASHOKA BHAVANAM, PERUMKULAM P.O,
              PERIMKULAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
              REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SRI. ASOKAN, PIN - 691566
              BY ADV B.J.JOHN PRAKASH

RESPONDENTS:

     1        CANARA BANK
              REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER/
              CHIEF MANAGER, KOTTARAKARA I BRANCH, VIGNESWARA BUILDING,
              OYOOR ROAD, KOTTARAKARA, PIN - 691506
     2        JAYAKUMAR R
              PUNARTHAM, PERUMKULAM P.O, KOTTARAKARA, PIN - 691566
     3        JYOTHILEKSHMI
              W/O JAYAKUMAR.R, PUNARTHAM,
              PERUMKULAM P.O., KOTTARAKARA, PIN - 691566
              BY ADV SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, CANARA BANK

     THIS     WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
27.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC No.2008 of 2023
                                   2




                          T.R. RAVI, J.
               ------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C.) No.2008 of 2023
               ------------------------------------
            Dated this the 27th day of January, 2023

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioners rely on an agreement executed

with the respondents 2 and 3 for sale of the property

which had already been mortgaged with the

respondent bank by respondents 2 and 3 and pray

that they should not be dispossessed. The petitioners

have no right which can be enforced as against the

bank nor do they have any privity of contract with the

bank. The borrowers have not challenged the taking

of possession by the Advocate Commissioner. Even if,

Ext.P1 is to be treated as enforceable, the petitioners

cannot have a right better than that of the owners of

the property.

In such circumstances, no relief can be granted to

the petitioners in this writ petition. The writ petition is WPC No.2008 of 2023

hence dismissed. However, taking into account the

submission of the petitioners that the 1 st petitioner's

wife is having serious health issues and cannot be

moved, there will be a direction to the respondents to

keep in abeyance the taking of possession pursuant

to Ext.P2 notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner

for a period of two weeks to facilitate the petitioners

to find an alternate accommodation. The petitioners

are also free to approach the 1st respondent bank for

any other manner of settlement of the accounts

between the 1st respondent and respondents 2 and 3.

The above order is without prejudice to the right of

the petitioners against respondents 2 and 3 based on

Ext.P1 agreement.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI JUDGE SKP/27-01 WPC No.2008 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2008/2023

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 21.03.2016 EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS DATED 12.01.2023 EXHIBIT-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OUTPATIENT RECORD FROM MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S WIFE RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE