Dismissed

P.M.Navan v. Union Bank of India, Represented by Its Authorised Officer

Kerala HC8 Jun 2015WP(C)/5515/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged SARFAESI proceedings against property in which he claims a share. The Court held that property possession is a civil right undecidable here without statutory breach. Left petitioner's civil remedy open but stayed dispossession for one month.

What did the court decide?

Stay directed on dispossession of property by Bank for a period of one month.

P.M.Navan Vs Union Bank of India, Represented by Its… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/18TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 5515 of 2015 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

P.M.NAVAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.KARUNAKARAN, SALESMAN, RESIDING AT KORAMBETH HOUSE, MACHERI P.O., MOWANCHERRY, CHELORA AMSOM, MACHERI DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR- 670 613.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN

¶9

SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.M.N.MANMADAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, NEAR SANTHOSH HOSPITAL, NEW BUS STAND, THALASSERY- 670 001.

¶12

2. P.LEELA, W.O.LATE K.KARUNAKARAN, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT KORAMBETH HOUSE, MACHERI P.O., MOWANCHERRY, CHELORA AMSOM, MACHERI DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR- 670 613.

¶13

3. ROJA, AGED 47 YEARS,

¶14

HOUSEWIFE, D/O.LATE K.KARUNAKARAN, MENTALLY ILL, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, P.LEELA, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.KARUNAKARAN, RESIDING AT KORAMBETH HOUSE,MACHERI P.O., MOWANCHERRY, CHELORA AMSOM, MACHERI DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR- 670 613.

¶15

4. REEJA, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE K.KARUNAKARAN, RESIDING AT KORAMBETH HOUSE, MACHERI P.O., MOWANCHERRY, CHELORA AMSOM, MACHERI DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR- 670 613.

¶16

5. SHEEJA, AGED 34 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D/O.LATE K.KARUNAKARAN, RESIDING AT KORAMBETH HOUSE, MACHERI P.O., MOWANCHERRY, CHELORA AMSOM, MACHERI DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR- 670 613.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, S.C, U.B.I

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd

¶20

WP(C).No. 5515 of 2015 (L)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER, ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/09/2014 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, THALASSERY IN C.M.P NO.501/2014.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF FAMILY MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO. 7063933 DATED 10/07/2014 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHELORA VILLAGE.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

Msd

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶33

------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.5515 of 2015

¶34

Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2015

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the 'SARFAESI' proceedings initiated by the 1^st respondent pursuant to Ext.P3 order. He alleges that, he has a share in the property comprised in Resurvey No.8/1 of Chelora Amsom, Machery Desom, against which the Bank proceeded with steps.

¶37

According to the petitioner, the property originally belongs to his father and he has 1/6 share of ownership right over the same. It is submitted that, he was not a party to the loan agreement with the Bank and he has already moved the Civil Court for partition. It is also submitted that, the Bank has no right to proceed against the property.

¶38

Essentially, the Bank can claim only the right of the mortgagor. Whatever right Bank obtains, that can be only the right of persons who have mortgaged the property. The petitioner is not a party to the agreement. Therefore, the petitioner's right cannot be obtained by the Bank. Whether the petitioner is entitled to retain possession of the property or not, cannot be decided by this Court. The right claimed by the petitioner is a civil right available to him under ordinary civil law. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Bank's action can only be interfered, if there is a statutory breach.

¶39

W.P.(C) No.5515 of 2015

¶40

¶41

Therefore leaving open the petitioner's remedy against dispossession before the appropriate Civil Court, this writ petition is disposed of. Since the Bank has not taken possession so far, Bank shall not take the same for a period of one month.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

¶44

P.M.Navan v. Union Bank of India, Represented by Its Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Navan v. Union Bank of India, Represented by Its Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sobha.K Vs Mr.T.Balakrishnan

Anil S Uzhathil Vs Tinku Biswal

Bharathiya Pattikajana Samajam Vs Sri. E.K.Majhi

Hari Kishore Vs Gracy John

Balakrishnan K.M. Vs Radhakrishnan

Smt. Shilly P. Antony Vs Deputy Director of Education