Allowed

Pathanapuram Bock Housing Co-Operative B v. Joint Registrar (General) and Others

Kerala HC18 Mar 2010WP(C)/5583/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition involved a cooperative society's auction sale of mortgaged property confirmed in 2009. A subsequent attachment order by another creditor hindered the sale deed's execution. The Court held the subsequent attachment does not bar registration and directed the registrar to execute the sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser, Mr. Noushad, within one month.

Pathanapuram Bock Housing Co-Operative B Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶4

WP(C).No. 5583 of 2010(W)

PETITIONER(S):

PATHANAPURAM BLOCK HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.Q-456, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.M.PRAKASH.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLLAM.

¶13

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUNALUR.

¶14

ARBITRATOR CUM SALE OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION, MULLOOR ROAD, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-35.

¶15

SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶16

BY GP K C SANTHOSH KUMAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J

¶19

WP(C).NO.5583 OF 2010

¶20

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner is a Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. One Mr.K.S.Radhakrishnan and Kumari Ganga had taken three loans from the Society. However, they did not repay the amounts. Therefore, the Bank initiated action for recovery of the amounts due by filing ARC Nos.179, 180 and 181 of 1999 against them. All the three cases were allowed and separate awards were passed in respect of each of them. For execution of the awards, the petitioner filed three execution petitions. Execution was taken out against the properties of the defaulters that were mortgaged as security for the loans. The properties were sold in public auction on 13.1.2009 to one Noushad, Maroor Manzil, Punalur, Kollam District. The sale was confirmed on 17.7.2009 as per Ext.P1 order of the first respondent. Pursuant to the confirmation of the sale, the first respondent authorised the second respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of Noushad. At this point of time, it was noticed that Muthoot Vehicle Finance,

¶23

Wpc 5583/2010

¶24

¶25

Ernakulam had obtained an attachment over the property in I.A.No.2712 of 2009 of District Court, Ernakulam. The existence of the above order of attachment was noticed only when Ext.P3 Encumbrance Certificate was obtained.

¶26

According to the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P3 shows that the attachment order was obtained only on 9.7.2009. The second respondent reported that in view of the order of attachment, it was not possible to register the sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser. Thereupon, the first respondent has, on 8.1.2010, directed the petitioner to discharge the liability before execution of the sale deed. According to the petitioner, the existence of the order of attachment does not bar execution of the sale deed by the second respondent. Since the attachment obtained by Muthoot Vehicle Finance was subsequent to the order of attachment obtained by the petitioner, it is contended that the petitioner was entitled to preference over the subsequent creditor. Since the property had already been sold in public auction, the claim of the second creditor does not survive.

¶27

I have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader also.

¶28

Wpc 5583/2010

¶29

¶30

According to the Government Pleader, the existence of the order of attachment need not preclude execution of the sale deed pursuant to the auction that was conducted. Therefore, the action of the second respondent in refusing to register the sale deed is without any justification.

¶31

In view of the above submission, there is no need to go into the merits of the contentions raised. It is sufficient that the second respondent is directed to register the sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser, without further delay.

¶32

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to execute the sale deed in respect of the properties that were sold by public auction on 13.1.2009 and confirmed on 17.7.2009, in favour of Mr. Noushad, who is the auction purchaser, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶34

lgk

Pathanapuram Bock Housing Co-Operative B v. Joint Registrar (General) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathanapuram Bock Housing Co-Operative B v. Joint Registrar (General) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fact Employees (Intuc) Vs the Fact Ltd.

E.M.Shanavas Vs Asst. Labour Officer Grade II

K.P.Manikandan Vs the R.T.A and Others

Secretary Qae Society Vs Secretary Rta Pathanamthitta

Joy Cherian Vs the Assitant Registrar

K.v.Priyan & Another Vs the Assistant Registrar and Others