Kerala High Court
Sreejith. C vs The Manager on 9 September, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:66400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 2220 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
1 SREEJITH C.,
AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O.CHANDRAKUMAR,
RESIDING AT THARAVATTATHU HOUSE,
PERUMBALLOOR. P.O, PERINGAZHA,
MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686673
2 GEETHA,
AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O. CHANDRAKUMAR THARAVATTATHU HOUSE,
PERUMBALLOOR.P.O, PERINGAZHA,
MUVATTUPZHA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 686673
BY ADVS.
3846
SHRI.SAJIN S. DAS
SMT.FATHIMA NASREEN S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGER,
THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED
AROOR BRANCH, ANJANAM BUILDINGS,
TEMPLE JUNCTION ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 680020
2 THE MANAGER,
THE MUVATTUPUZHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
NO:556 H.O KACHRITHAZHAM,
MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686661
2025:KER:66400
W.P.(C) No.2220/2025
:2:
3 VILLAGE OFFICER,
MARADI VILLAGE OFFICE,
MUVATTUPUZHA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 686661
4 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,
DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION,
VANCHIYOOR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695035
5 SUB REGISTRAR OFFICER,
SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE,
PUZHAKKARAKAVU RD,
NEAR TB JUNCTION,
THOTTUMKALPEEDIKA,
MUVATTUPUZHA,
PIN - 686661
BY ADV.
SRI.SALIL NARAYANAN, SC
SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, SC
SRI.DHEERAJ A.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 30.06.2025, THE COURT ON 09.09.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:66400
W.P.(C) No.2220/2025
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.2220 of 2025
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
Petitioners 1 and 2 are son and mother,
respectively. They have obtained an overdraft facility from
the 2nd respondent-Muvattupuzha Urban Co-operative Bank.
They are now before this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P10
and to direct the Bank/KSFE to accept certified copy of
Ext.P1 as security.
2. The petitioners state that the 1st petitioner
had availed an overdraft facility of ₹15,00,000/- from the 2 nd
respondent-Bank in the year 2017. Two properties having
extent of 8.10 Ares and 2.83 Ares belonging to the 2nd
2025:KER:66400
petitioner was given as security. The Bank later enhanced
the loan from ₹15 lakhs to ₹30 lakhs. Due to Covid-19
pandemic and subsequent events, the 1st petitioner defaulted
in maintaining the loan account to the satisfaction of the
Bank.
3. The petitioners intended to settle the loan
account selling their property. However, due to the market
conditions, there was no purchaser to buy the property. In
the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent agreed to settle the loan.
The petitioners state that believing the offer made by the 2 nd
respondent, the petitioners purchased an instrument default
Chitty having price value of ₹40 lakhs from KSFE Limited.
The Bank had agreed to settle the loan on payment of
₹33,00,000/-.
4. The petitioners approached the KSFE and
the KSFE sent Ext.P4 letter to the Bank stating that the
KSFE is ready to transfer the agreed amount of ₹33 lakhs to
the loan account. The 2nd respondent agreed with the
2025:KER:66400
proposal. The KSFE stated that they are ready to advance
the amount to settle the loan provided the Bank is ready to
handover the original documents and relevant records on the
same day when ₹33 lakhs is paid.
5. Still later, the petitioners held a discussion
with the Bank and the Bank agreed to settle the loan amount
provided apart from ₹33 lakhs, interest amount of
₹1,32,000/- is paid. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners
transferred ₹85,000/- and another ₹2,32,000/-. However, the
KSFE Ltd. is now refusing to accept the settlement and and
close the loan, thereby putting the petitioners into a helpless
condition.
6. The Standing Council for the KSFE Limited
submitted that there was a discussion for payment of ₹33
lakhs as Chitty amount in order to enable the petitioners to
clear the loan with the Bank. However, after pricing, the
Chitty, the petitioners did not pay the subscription amounts.
The KSFE Ltd therefore cannot advance ₹33 lakhs to the
2025:KER:66400
petitioners or the lender-Bank.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the respective Standing Counsel appearing
for respondents 1 to 4. I have also heard the learned counsel
representing the 5th respondent.
8. The petitioners state that the 1st petitioner
had availed an overdraft/loan facility from the 2 nd respondent
Bank. The liability to the Bank has accumulated to more than
₹40 lakhs and the Bank has agreed to settle the loan
account for ₹33 lakhs. In order to raise the said amount, the
petitioners subscribed a Chitty of the 1st respondent. The
Chitty was priced for ₹33,00,000/-. The case projected by the
petitioners in the petition is that the KSFE is not advancing
the Chitty amount without producing the original of the
security documents, which the Bank has refused to part with,
without clearing the entire loan dues.
9. The Standing Counsel for for the KSFE
Limited would submit that the petitioners after the pricing of
2025:KER:66400
the Chitty did not pay the monthly subscriptions, and
therefore they will not be able to pay the entire Chitty amount
to the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner is not in a
position to produce the originals of the title documents.
10. The issue involved in the writ petition
relates to release of Chitty amount by the 1 st respondent and
settlement of loan account of the 1 st petitioner by the 2nd
respondent-Bank. These are purely commercial transactions.
In these transactions, there is no element of public duty.
Therefore, this Court will not be justified in issuing any writs
or directions against respondents 1 or 2. A writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/03.09.2025
2025:KER:66400
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2220/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED PARTITION
DEED FROM MARADI VILLAGE OFFICE DATED
26.08.1985
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP© NO.
31798/ 2022 DATED 26.10.2022 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
KSFE AROOR BRANCH MANAGER DATED ON
18.03.2024
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED ON 25/03/2024 AND
ITS TYPED COPY
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT KSFE AROOR BRANCH MANAGER
DATED ON 02/11/2024
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT BRANCH MANAGER DATED ON
14/11/2024
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
KSFE AROOR BRANCH MANAGER DATED
22.07.2024
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 7.10.2024
IN WPC NO. 31336/ 2024 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF RTGS
TRANSACTION ON 21/10/2024 ( DATE NOT
SHOWN IN EXHIBIT )
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24/12/2024
ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER NOTICE IN MC NO.430/2022
DATED 22/08/2022 OF SPECIAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
COURT, ERNAKUALM.
