V.M Abdul Salam vs The Chief Executive Officer
2025 Latest Caselaw 5643 Ker

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5643 Ker
Judgement Date : 28 March, 2025

Kerala High Court

V.M Abdul Salam vs The Chief Executive Officer on 28 March, 2025

                                                         2025:KER:27199

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

        FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                       WP(C) NO. 10576 OF 2025

PETITIONERS:
     1     V.M ABDUL SALAM,
           AGED 75 YEARS,
           S/O MUSAVANNAN,VALIYAKUNNATHU HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O,
           KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686507.

    2       P.K SAFIYA,
            AGED 68 YEARS,
            W/O V.M ABDUL SALAM,VALIYAKUNNATHU HOUSE,KANJIRAPPALLY
            P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686507.

            BY ADVS.
            V.H.JASMINE
            GILDA DAVIS
            JOHIN JOHNSON
            JIBI JOHNSON


RESPONDENTS:
           THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
           MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED 4266,
           H.O POONJAR,POONJAR THEKKEKARA P.O, MEENACHIL TALUK,
           KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686582.

            BY ADVS.
            Mariya Rajan
            SHINU J.PILLAI(K/223/2005)
            S.SUJA(K/87/2005)
            ANN MARIYA JOHN(K/782/2021)
            FELIX SAMSON VARGHESE(K/4328/2024)
            FATHIMA J.M.(K/004471/2024)

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 10576 OF 2025

                                    2

                                                          2025:KER:27199

                              JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the

following reliefs:-

i. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondent Bank to execute the sale deed in favour of V.U. Hameed and his wife as requested by the Petitioners;

ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondent Bank to immediately consider Ext. P5 application of the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

iii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondent Bank to immediately takes steps expedite the registration proceedings in the name of the nominees as suggested by the petitioner Mr. V.U Hameed and his wife Thankamma Hameed within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

2. The issued stands covered by Ext.P9 judgment

of this Court, where this Court held as follows:-

"3. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that since the petitioner is an entity which had taken part in the auction, the sale deed can be registered only in the name of the petitioner and not in the name of any other person. However, the learned counsel is unable to point out any provision of law which would prohibit registration of the property in the name of the nominees of the petitioner.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for WP(C) NO. 10576 OF 2025

2025:KER:27199

the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent bank and finding no prohibition in any law that prevents the bank from registering documents in the name of the nominees of the petitioner, I am of the view that the writ petition must be allowed by directing the respondent bank to register the documents in the name of the nominees of the petitioner despite the fact that such nominees had not taken part in the auction and only the petitioner had taken part in the auction. The needful shall be done after obtaining due authorisation from the petitioner to the satisfaction of the respondent bank. The petitioner shall execute such documents as necessary to indemnify the respondent bank from any claim or disputes arising out of the request of the petitioner to register the property in the name of nominees of the petitioner."

3. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank

fairly submits that the issue is covered by the directions issued by

this Court in Ext.P9 and those directions can be issued in this

case also.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, this writ

petition will stand disposed of directing that the Bank shall

execute necessary documents for re-conveying the property

belonging to the petitioners in favour of Sri. V.U Hameed and his

wife as requested for by the petitioners after obtaining

authorization from the petitioners and after obtaining an

indemnity bond from the petitioners agreeing to indemnify the WP(C) NO. 10576 OF 2025