Kerala High Court
Sajeed C.A vs South Indian Bank Ltd on 26 March, 2025
2025:KER:25827
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12517 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
1 SAJEED C.A.,
AGED 53 YEARS
CHILAMBITHAYYIL, PONNAD P.O., MANNANCHERRY,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688538
2 SABEEDA C.A.,
AGED 45 YEARS
THAREKKADAVIL, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
688538
3 SAUMILA SHAJI,
AGED 43 YEARS
PADANILATHIL, CHUNGAM, PALLURUTHI, PAZHAVEEDU
P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688009
4 SABILA C.A.,
AGED 37 YEARS
KHADER MANZIL, MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
688538
BY ADVS.
P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
RENOY VINCENT
SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
CHELSON CHEMBARATHY
ABEE SHEJIRIK FASLA N.K
NANDA SURENDRAN
SAHAL SHAJAHAN
AQUIN KURUVILLA TOM
2025:KER:25827
W.P.(C) No.12517 of 2025
2
M.N.MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.,
BUILDING NO.4/D, NEAR MANNANCHERRY SCHOOL
JUNCTION, M MANNANCHERRY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN - 688538
2 AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., THIRUVALLA, 2ND FLOOR,
TMJ COMPLEX, M.C. ROAD, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689107
3 M/S. BUDOS TRADING PVT. LTD.,
5/454 A, THEKKE CHILAMBITTAYAL, MANNANCHERRY,
PONNADU, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH
DIRECTOR, SMT. SHAJEENA SAFEED, PIN - 688538
4 SAFEED A.,
CHILAMBITHAYIL, MANNANCHERRY, PONNADU, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688538
5 SHAJEENA SAFEED
CHILAMBITHAYIL, MANNANCHERRY, PONNADU, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688538
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. B.J.JOHN PRAKASH, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:25827
W.P.(C) No.12517 of 2025
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are stated to be the children of one Fathima
Beevi @ Pathummabeevi, who is the absolute owner in possession of
15.60 ares of property comprised in Re-Sy.No.623/11 of Mannacherry
Village, Ambalappuzha Taluk, Alappuzha District along with the
residential building constructed thereon. The petitioners are before
this Court stating that the aforesaid Fathima Beevi is suffering from
Bipolar Affective Disorder, as can be seen from Ext.P3 certificate and
that one of her children, namely the 4 th respondent herein, had
obtained a loan from the 1st respondent Bank after mortgaging the
property belonging to Smt.Fathima Beevi without her knowledge or
consent. It is stated that the entire transaction between the 4 th
respondent with the 1st respondent Bank is a fraudulent transaction
and Smt.Fathima Beevi cannot be bound by such fraudulent
transactions entered into without her consent and knowledge. It is
submitted that the fact that the 3rd respondent-Company (for which
the loan was availed), had earlier approached this Court and had
2025:KER:25827
obtained Ext.P4 judgment, is no ground to deny the reliefs to the
petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank
submitted that this is not a case where any indulgence can be granted
to the petitioners. It is submitted that while the petitioners may have
the right to avail the statutory remedies, the petitioners are not
entitled to any protective order from this court in the facts and
circumstances of this case. It is submitted that even assuming that
Smt.Fathima Beevi is suffering from some mental disorder as seen
from Ext.P3 certificate, the fact remains that petitioners 1 and 3 are
admittedly staying with Smt.Fathima Beevi in the residential house
situated in the property in question. It is submitted that the bank had
taken symbolic possession of the secured asset on 09.09.2024 and
had immediately put up a board stating that the property is under
the possession of the bank. It is submitted that paper publication was
also carried out on 11.09.2024. It is submitted that since petitioners
1 and 3 are staying with Smt.Fathima Beevi in the residential house
situated in the property in question, they cannot plead ignorance of
2025:KER:25827
the proceedings initiated by the bank and seek to interdict the
proceedings for taking physical possession even on the ground that
they intend to avail statutory remedies. It is submitted that the writ
petition is clearly a collusive affair between respondents 4 and 5 and
the petitioners and they cannot be granted any reliefs in the writ
petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Bank, I am of the view that the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent bank is right in contending that the facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioners are not even entitled to any
protective order pending consideration of any statutory applications
that they may make before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is true
that the property in question is the residential house of petitioners 1
and 3 and their mother Smt.Fathima Beevi. However the fact
remains that the Bank had taken symbolic possession of the property
and had affixed a board stating that the property was under the
possession of the bank. When this was done in the month of
2025:KER:25827
September, 2024, petitioners 1 and 3 definitely cannot take the
contention that they were totally unaware of the proceedings. At least,
at time when the bank had affixed a board on the property, they
should have moved this Court. They have chosen to move this Court
only on the eve of the date on which the Advocate Commissioner
appointed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha is
proposing to take physical possession of the secured assets.
Therefore, I find no reason to grant the reliefs sought for in the
writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed,
leaving open all contentions and reserving the liberty of the
petitioners to seek statutory remedies, if so advised.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
Scl/
2025:KER:25827
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12517/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS' MOTHER DATED
28.12.2021
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX
RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS'
MOTHER DATED 17.02.2023
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS' MOTHER DATED
24.03.2025
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.41853/2024
DATED 17.12.2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER SECTION 13(2)
OF SARFAESI ACT DATED 15.06.2024
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 UNDER
SECTION 13(4) OF SARFAESI ACT DATED
09.09.2024
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 14.11.2024
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 21.10.2024
