Ajith K.P vs The Sub Registrar
2026 Latest Caselaw 1839 Ker

Kerala High Court

Ajith K.P vs The Sub Registrar on 19 February, 2026

                                                        2026:KER:14944
WP(C) NO. 6195 OF 2026              1



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

      THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947

                          WP(C) NO. 6195 OF 2026

PETITIONER/S:

      1       AJITH K.P.,
              AGED 38 YEARS
              S/O PAPPU K.K, RESIDING AT KARAPPILLY HOUSE,
              NEDUMBASSERRY VILLAGE, MEKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
              PIN - 683589

      2       RESHMA K.R.,
              AGED 33 YEARS
              W/O AJITH K.P., RESIDING AT KARAPPILLY HOUSE,
              NEDUMBASSERRY VILLAGE, MEKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
              PIN - 683589


              BY ADV SHRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY


RESPONDENT/S:

      1       THE SUB REGISTRAR,
              SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, CHENGAMANADU, ERNAKULAM
              DISTRICT, PIN - 683578

      2       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
              VILLAGE OFFICE NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
              683585

      3       LITO PAULOSE,
              S/O PAULOSE, PANJIKKARAN HOUSE, VATTAPARAMBU P.O,
              NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
              PIN - 683579

      4       M/S FREEMEN INVESTIGATIONS PVT. LTD,
              KURUMASSERY BRANCH, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
              VIII/498, FIRST FLOOR, LF CHURCH SHOPPING COMPLEX,
              KURUMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
                                                         2026:KER:14944
WP(C) NO. 6195 OF 2026                2



              DIRECTOR, PIN - 683579

      5       M/S NEDUMBASSERY SAHAKARANA NIDHI LIMITED,
              MEKKAD BRANCH HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ALUKKALS
              BUILDING, NEAR SOCIETY JUNCTION, MEKKAD P.O, ERNAKULAM
              DISTRICT, PIN - 683589


              SRI. K. M. FAISAL, GP


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                         2026:KER:14944
WP(C) NO. 6195 OF 2026                     3




                                      JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of February, 2026

The petitioners purchased an extent of 3.64 ares of property

with a residential building comprised in Re.Sy No.18/5/3 in Block No.10

of Nedumbassery Village in an auction under the SARFAESI Act. The

respondent Nos.4 and 5 initiated arbitration proceedings against the 3 rd

respondent and the Arbitrator allowed the same by attaching the

property and reported the same to the revenue authorities. The order of

attachment continues to be in force as per the records of respondent

Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed by the

petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

i. .Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the entry of attachment made pursuant to Exhibit P2 and P3 in the registration and revenue records ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction nullifying the attachment made by Ext. P2 and P3.

iii. Dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners rely on a judgment

of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Shriram Transport Finance

Co. Ltd. v. Saneesha M.S and Ors. [2024 SCC online Ker 5233]

wherein, it was held as follows:

"10. The question is what is the remedy then available for a third party who is aggrieved by an order of attachment. So long as the 2026:KER:14944

order is not enforced, the same is not self workable. If it is enforced through a civil court, necessarily, the third party, who is aggrieved can raise his objection against the enforcement or even after the enforcement, the third party can very well raise an objection as against the enforcement by claiming that the property belongs to him. The Code of Civil Procedure provides necessary mechanism for the third party to raise a claim or title over the property. We are of the view that the writ petitioner -Saneesha M S, is not deprived of any remedy as the Code of Civil Procedure safeguard such interest of the third parties. The law is very clear that the tribunal cannot exercise sovereign function of enforcement and such power is vested with civil court. Therefore, writ petitioner - Saneesha M S can very well resist the enforcement or can raise a claim before the civil court when an order is sought to be enforced. So long as it is not enforced, no right of the writ petitioner - Saneesha M S is deprived of to enjoy the property in accordance with law, if the writ petitioner - Saneesha M S is the real owner of the property. As we noted earlier, we have not decided the maintainability of such challenge in appeal before civil court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. That will have to be worked out independently as it is not for us to observe whether such appeal is maintainable or not in this proceedings.

11. On conclusion, we are of the view that the arbitral tribunal usurped the power of civil court by directly intimating the order of attachment to the Sub Registrar and the Village Officer. That direction will have to be nullified. Accordingly, we nullify the direction. The Sub Registrar or any revenue officials is not bound by any orders passed by the arbitral tribunal unless such an order is enforced through the civil court. We make it clear that the Sub Registrar or any revenue officials shall not act on the direct intimation of the arbitral tribunal regarding attachment unless and until it is enforced through a civil court. We direct the learned Government Pleader to communicate this order by directing the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and Finance Department to intimate all registrar as well as the revenue authorities not to record attachment order which is directly communicated by the arbitral tribunal unless and until it is communicated through the civil court by an order. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment to the extent it interferes with the order of attachment. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of as above."

2026:KER:14944

The relief sought in the writ petition is covered by the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Shriram

Transport Finance (supra). Therefore, it is found that the

endorsement in respect of the attachment made by the Sub

Registrar, upon the intimation of the Arbitrator, in the registration

and revenue records is without authority. Hence, this writ petition

is disposed of, and the entry made in respect of the attachment

made by the Arbitrator is nullified and the 1 st respondent is directed

to delete the entry of attachment made therein within one month

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI JUDGE Sru 2026:KER:14944

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 6195 OF 2026

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 26.09.2025 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 1/2024 IN ARBITRATION REFERENCE NO. 228/2024 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 03.05.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 1/2024 IN ARBITRATION REFERENCE NO. 55/2024 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 06.06.2024 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP C) NO.

45553/2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 17.12.2025