Dismissed

Thanooja Kappil v. Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

DRT19 Feb 2026SA/820/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application seeking to quash a demand notice and an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of property. The applicant claimed the land was agricultural, but the Tribunal held that mortgaging the property demonstrated treatment as non-agricultural land per Supreme Court precedents. The order upheld the statutory compliance of the bank.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application No. 820 of 2024 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Thanooja Kappil versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 19^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

S.A No. 820 of 2024

¶6

Between

¶7

Thanooja Kappil, W/o Muhammedali N.P. Nellaya Puthanpurakkal House, Pathirikkode P.O., Malappuram – 679 326.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

The Authorized Officer,

¶11

The Perinthalmanna Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Head Office, URBANK Tower, Pattambi Road, Shanthi Nagar, Perinthalmanna – 679 322.

¶12

The Perinthalmanna Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Melattur Branch, Melattur P.O. Malappuram – 679 326,

¶13

Rep. by its Branch Manager.

¶14

--- Defendants

¶15

This Securitization Application coming on 16.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Adithya Varma, Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. John Joseph, representing the Counsel on record for the defendants and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶16

SA No.820 of 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Securitisation Application was filed on 05.11.2024 seeking to quash Annexure-A2 demand notice, Annexure-A4 Advocate Commissioner’s notice and Annexure-A6 order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri and to declare that the secured asset is agricultural property and to direct the defendants to pay costs to the applicant.

¶19

The applicant availed credit facility to the tune of Rs.17,50,000/- from the 2^nd defendant bank upon creation of equitable mortgage over her immovable property admeasuring an extent of 1.1 Acre comprised in Re. Sy. No.296/2 Amsom Pathrikode Desom of Perinthalmanna Taluk of Malappuram District.

¶20

Due to default in repayment of the outstanding loan due, her loan account came to be classified as Non-Performing Asset on 30.06.2020. Annexure – A2 demand notice dated 05.10.2020 was issued calling upon her to repay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. The applicant neither sent any objection/ representation to the demand notice nor did she clear off her liability due to the defendant bank.

¶21

Thereafter the defendants approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri and filed Annexure – A7 petition and Annexure – A8 affidavit under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Annexure – A6 Order dated 10.09.2024 came to be passed in MC No.891/2024 appointing Advocate Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner issued Annexure – A4 notice to the applicant informing that she would take physical possession of the secured asset on 08.11.2024. The applicant having aggrieved against the above measures filed this SA seeking for the reliefs stated supra .

¶22

The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the secured asset is agricultural property wherein various crops such as coconut, arecanut, banana, pepper, fodder crops etc. are being cultivated and that the above fact was known to the defendants and that Annexure – A1 tax receipt and Annexure – A3 certificate prove that the secured asset is agricultural property and that without issuing possession notice, the defendants approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court to get order for taking physical possession of the secured asset and that interest calculated is incorrect and that the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri without verifying

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

SA No.820 of 2024

¶25

the petition and affidavit passed order to take physical possession of the secured asset and that the SA may be allowed as prayed for.

¶26

The counsel appearing for the defendants submitted that due to default committed by the applicant her loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 30.06.2020 as per RBI guidelines and that she did not send any objection to the demand notice and that possession notice was issued and that the secured asset is not an agricultural property and that no document has been produced to show that the secured asset was agricultural property on the date of creation of security interest over the same as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank & another Vs. Pappireddiyar & another (AIR 2018 SC 3540) and that since the applicant offered the property as non-agricultural land, she cannot turn around and contend that it is an agricultural property as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITC Limited Vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. and that interest has been charged as per terms of the contract and that all the statutory requirements contemplated under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has been complied with and that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri after having verified the contents of the affidavit and the documents and having satisfied over the same, passed order appointing Advocate Commissioner and that there is no procedural irregularity in respect of the measures initiated by the defendants and that therefore, SA may be dismissed with costs to the defendants.

¶27

The applicant relies upon Annexure-A1 copy of land tax receipt and Annexure-A3 copy of certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Edappatta in order to prove her contention that secured asset is agricultural property. Annexure-A1 does not disclose the nature of the land as agricultural property.

¶28

In Annexure-A3 it is stated that Thanooja is a farmer cultivating coconut, arecanut, banana, pepper, cattle fodder in her land comprising Sy No.296/2. There is no mention in the certificate as to whether the concerned Agricultural Officer inspected the property prior to issuance of the certificate in order to verify as to whether the aforesaid cultivation is being carried on in the property. In any event, Annexure-A3 is not a relevant and convincing document in order to show that the secured asset was agricultural property on the date of creation of security interest over the same as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank & another Vs. Pappireddiyar & another (AIR 2018 SC 3540). The applicant has not produced any records to show that the secured asset was the agricultural property and that agricultural operations were being carried on in the property on the date of creation of security interest over the same.

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

SA No.820 of 2024

¶31

In ITC Limited Vs. Bluecoast Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & others [2018 (15) SCC] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :

¶32

“ Obviously, since no security interest can be created in respect of agricultural lands and yet it was so created, goes to show that the parties did not treat the land as agricultural land and that the debtor offered the land as security on this basis .”

¶33

Even assuming for argument’s sake without admitting that secured asset is the agricultural property as claimed by the applicant, the conduct of the applicant in mortgaging such property as the collateral security for availment of credit facility would show that she has not treated the property as agricultural property as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment. Therefore, this Tribunal is not inclined to accept the contention of the applicant that secured asset is agricultural property.

¶34

The applicant has averred in the SA that interest calculated and arrears shown in Annexure-A5 statement (wrongly stated as Annexure-A4) is disputed by her. A perusal of Annexure-A5 copy of account statement of the applicant does not prove the above averment of the applicant.

¶35

A perusal of Annexure-A8 affidavit shows that all the statutory requirements contemplated under Clauses (i) to (ix) to the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 has been complied with by the defendants. A perusal of Annexure-A6 order shows that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents filed in support of the affidavit and having satisfied over the same, passed order appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. This Tribunal does not find any infirmity or procedural irregularity in the above order.

¶36

The applicant has failed to prove her case so as to get the reliefs sought for in the SA. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA.

¶37

Page 4 of 6

¶38

SA No.820 of 2024

¶39

Resultantly, S.A No.820 of 2024 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19^th day of February, 2026.

¶41

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 5 of 6

SA No.820 of 2024

List of documents filed by the Applicant along with the S.A.

¶46

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	09.07.2024	True copy of the land tax receipt issued by theVillage Officer,Edappatta.	Annexure-A1
2.	---	True copy of the English translation of Annexure-A1.	Annexure- A1(a)
3.	05.10.2020	True copy of the demand notice issued by the 2^nddefendants with English translation.	Annexure-A2
4.	21.10.2024	True copy of the certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan Edappatta.	Annexure-A3
5.	---	True copy of the English translation of Annexure-A3.	Annexure- A3(a)
6.	17.10.2024	True copy of the notice issued by the Advocate Commissioner in MC 891/24 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri.	Annexure-A4
7.	22.10.2024	True copy of account statement of loan accountNo.0006002800010127	Annexure-A5
8.	10.09.2024	True copy of the order in MC 891/2024 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri.	Annexure-A6
9.	31.08.2024	True copy of petition numbered as MC 891/2024 filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri with English translation.	Annexure-A7
10.	31.08.2024	True copy of affidavit in MC 891/2024 filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Manjeri	Annexure-A8

¶47

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

Mj/

¶49

Page 6 of 6

Thanooja Kappil v. Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thanooja Kappil v. Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Sh. Dalip Singh @ Daleep Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Manimahesh Motor Works Pvt. Ltd.

Federal Bank versus Priyanka Saha and Anr.

Jagmohan Ladhar versus M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Baltar Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Surendra Kumar @ Surinder Kumar