Dr. Sunil. J vs The Village Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 6934 Ker

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
         THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1945
                           WP(C) NO. 16251 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:

     1      DR. SUNIL. J
            AGED 52 YEARS, S/O LATE JANARDHANAN UNNITHAN,
            RESIDING AT MADHAVAM, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, THEVALLY P.O,
            KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 009.

     2      LAKSHMI. T
            AGED 45 YEARS, W/O DR SUNIL. J,
            RESIDING AT MADHAVAM, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, THEVALLY P.O,
            KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 009.

            BY ADVS.
                       A.JANI(KOLLAM)
                       NISA FASIL(KOLLAM)


RESPONDENTS:

     1      THE VILLAGE OFFICER
            SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
            SASTHAMANGALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 010.

     2      M/S HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
            HDFC HOUSE, PB NO. 2288, VAZHUTHACAUD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 010.
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER.

     3      SANJEEV C.K,
            AGED 62 YEARS, S/O CHARLES,
            RESIDING AT PRISM CASTING NO. 7D, KOWDIAR MANOR,
            JAWAHAR NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 003.

     4      SREEDHANYA BABU,
            AGED 33 YEARS,
            RESIDING AT C 4 TC 9/570-1, SREEDHANYA, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
            KAWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 010.

            BY ADVS.
                      AMBILY S
                      MATHEW JOSEPH BALUMMEL(K/001219/2019)
                      K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)(C-41)
                      PREETHA K K (SR GP)


     THIS   WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
22.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.16251 OF 2023               2




                              JUDGMENT

Petitioners are auction purchaser in respect of an item

of property brought to sale by the 2 nd respondent-Financial

Institution, to recover amounts due from the 3rd respondent.

The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved

by the fact that mutation is not being effected in favour of

the petitioners in respect of property purchased by the

petitioners (as is evident from Ext.P1 Sale Certificate), which

has been duly registered on the ground that there is a

pending proceedings at the instance of the 4 th respondent

against the 3rd respondent.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would submit that the 3rd respondent had filed a

Securitisation Application as S.A.No.365/2019, challenging

the proceedings initiated by the Financial Institution under

the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act

(SARFAESI Act), and that Securitisation Application was

dismissed on 30-03-2023. It is submitted that the 4 th

respondent had also filed an Interlocutory Application before

the Debts Recovery Tribunal, staking a claim to the property,

that was brought to sale by the Financial Institution, stating

that the 4th respondent had entered into an agreement for

purchase of the said property with the 3rd respondent and

had also paid a huge amount as advance to the 3 rd

respondent. The Debts Recovery Tribunal had dismissed the

Interlocutory Application filed by the 4 th respondent, which

was challenged before this Court by filing O.P(DRT)

No.426/2022. O.P(DRT)No.426/2022 was dismissed by this

Court, finding that the 4th respondent cannot maintain such

an application before Debts Recovery Tribunal.

3. Service is not complete on the 3rd respondent.

However, that need not detain this Court from disposing of

this writ petition, as it is reported that the Securitisation

Application filed by the 3rd respondent had already been

dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

4. It is settled law that, even if there is any pending

proceeding at the instance of the 4 th respondent, that by

itself cannot be a basis to deny mutation. Further, it is

settled law that any subsequent proceedings including any

attachment cannot affect the proceedings initiated by the

Bank/Financial Institution on the basis of an earlier

mortgage (see, Secretary, Keechery Service Co-operative

Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar; 2020 (5) KHC 231 ,

Travancore Devaswom Board v. Deputy Examiner, Local

Fund Audit and Others; 2020 (3) KHC 129 and Madan S.

v. Sub Registrar, Kollam & others; 2014 (1) KLT 406)

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The 1 st

respondent is directed to effect mutation in respect of the

property covered by Ext.P1 Sale Certificate, in favour of the

petitioners, subject to compliance with usual formalities,

without in any manner being affected by any proceedings

that may have been initiated by the 4 th respondent in respect

of the property in question. It is made clear that this order

will not affect any proceeding at the instance of the 4 th

respondent, before the competent Civil Court.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE ats

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16251/2023

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE CERTIFICATE NO. 1027 OF 2023 DATED 04/04/2023 WITH THE SASTHAMANGALAM S.R.O

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 30/03/2023, IN O.A. NO: 365 OF 2019. THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14/11/2022 PREFERRED O.P (DRT) NO. 426 OF 2022 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT

Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18/05/2023 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ISSUED A LETTER TO THE PETITIONERS