Radhika vs Sub Registrar on 19 February, 2026

                                                        2026:KER:15200
WP(C) NO. 5421 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. 5421 OF 2026

PETITIONER/S:

      1       RADHIKA
              AGED 46 YEARS
              W/O SURESH K.K., KOTTILANCHERI HOUSE, KUMBALAM,
              PANANGAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682506.

      2       MURUKESH M
              AGED 49 YEARS
              S/O APPU, MALAYIL HOUSE, IRIMBANAM, ERNAKULAM,
              PIN - 682309.


              BY ADVS.
              SRI.SANIL JOSE
              SRI.P.G.SUDHEESH
              SRI.BONNY BENNY
              SRI.K.P.ANTONY BINU
              SHRI.AMALJITH




RESPONDENT/S:

      1       SUB REGISTRAR
              MARADU, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, MARADU, ERNAKULAM
              DISTRICT, PIN - 682304

      2       VILLAGE OFFICER
              MARADU VILLAGE OFFICE, NETTOOR P.O., MARADU, ERNAKULAM
              DISTRICT, PIN - 682040.

      3       M/S CHAMBAKARA URBAN NIDHI LIMITED
              THUNDIYIL (H), 50/174-B, POONITHURA, PETTA, ERNAKULAM-
                                                         2026:KER:15200
WP(C) NO. 5421 OF 2026              2



              REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR., PIN - 682038.




              SRI. K. M. FAISAL, GP,
              SMT. DIVYA B. NAIR, COUNSEL FOR R3


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                         2026:KER:15200
WP(C) NO. 5421 OF 2026                         3




                                       JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19th day of February, 2026

The 1st petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and

enjoyment of property having an extent of 1 Are 1 square meter

comprised in Re.Sy. No.150/3-2 in Block No.14 of Maradu Village. It is

submitted that the petitioners availed two loans from the 3 rd respondent

for an amount of Rs.1,98,000/- each. The 3 rd respondent thereafter

appointed Arbitrator and the Arbitral Tribunal has passed an order

attaching the property of the petitioners. 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, order or direction, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to efface the attachment entries made in the revenue records of the petitioners' property;

(ii) In the alternative to prayer (i), issue a direction, directing the 3rd respondent company to produce before this Hon'ble Court records relating to effecting and enforcing of attachment made on the petitioners' property;

(iii) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and

(iv) dispense with the production of English translation of documents in vernacular language which are produced as documents in the above Writ Petition.

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

of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Shriram Transport Finance 2026:KER:15200

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 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 2026:KER:15200

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."

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 passed by the Arbitrator is nullified.

The 1st 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:15200

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 5421 OF 2026

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

Exhibit -P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 7/1/2026 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER Exhibit -P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 2/2/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EVIDENCING DEPOSIT OF GOLD ORNAMENTS GOLD LOAN ACCOUNT NO.GLSME012 Exhibit -P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 2/2/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EVIDENCING DEPOSIT OF GOLD ORNAMENTS IN GOLD LOAN ACCOUNT NO.GLSME013 Exhibit -P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/10/2023 IN I.A.NO.1/2022 IN ARB. REF. NO. 1722/2022, PASSED BY THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL HEADED BY SOLE ARBITRATOR SHRI. JOSEPH MANAVALAN Exhibit -P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/10/2023 IN I.A.NO.1/2022 IN ARB. REF. NO. 1724/2022, PASSED BY THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL HEADED BY SOLE ARBITRATOR SHRI. JOSEPH MANAVALAN Exhibit -P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 3/11/2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit -P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE UNNUMBERED I.A. DATED 3/2/2026 IN ARB. REF. NO. 1722/2022 Exhibit -P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 4/2/2026 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit -P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 4/2/2026 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT