Disposed

B.Vijayakumar v. the Sub Registrar, Eravipuram

Kerala HC27 Jun 2016WP(C)/4616/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court held that attachments on the property effected after the date of the petitioner's auction sale were invalid. The court directed the respective courts to vacate these attachments and instructed the Sub Registrar to update the records accordingly, thereby enabling the issuance of a clean encumbrance certificate.

What did the court decide?

The court declared attachments made after 24/2/2009 invalid, directed respective courts to vacate them, and ordered the Sub Registrar to update entries in Book 1.

B.Vijayakumar Vs the Sub Registrar, Eravipuram — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/6TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4616 of 2014 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

B.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, THOTTUMKARA VEEDU, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM-691 017.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM-681 011.

¶11

2. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH, KOLLAM-691 508.

¶12

3. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (KERALA & LAKSHADWEEP),

¶13

5TH FLOOR, KSHB OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682 038.

¶14

R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY.K.T. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.A.ANTONY

¶15

SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

WP(C).No. 4616 of 2014 (B)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1:	A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT EVIDENCING DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEED MADE BY K.HARSHAKUMAR ON 02.08.1999.
EXHIBIT-P2:	A COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.02.2009.
EXHIBIT-P3:	A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.KDIS.6522/11/D9 DATED 3.11.2011 OF THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKEVILA.
EXHIBIT-P4:	A COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.11.2012, EVIDENCING THE TAX REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD 2003 TO 2012.
EXHIBIT-P5:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2013 IN WP(C) NO.14042 OF 2013.
EXHIBIT-P6:	COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.09.2013 EVIDENCING THE TAX REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD 2013 TO 2014.
EXHIBIT-P7:	COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 12.09.2013 ALONG WITH EXTRACT OF THE THANDAPER REGISTER AND LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKEVILA.
EXHIBIT-P8:	COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.01.2014.
EXHIBIT-P9:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/02/2010 IN OS.NO.90/2004 ISSUED BY THE ADDL.SUB COURT, KOLLAM

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶28

============= W.P. (C) No. 4616 of 2014

¶29

===================

¶30

Dated this, the 27^th day of June, 2016

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the

¶33

following reliefs;

¶34

“i) to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P8 and quash the same to the extent it contains entries regarding attachments, effected over the property purchased by the petitioner, subsequent to mortgage of properties by the previous owner with the 2^nd respondent on 2.8.1999.

¶35

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the first respondent to issue encumbrance certificate for petitioner's property comprised in Sy No.416/13 and 417/3 and 3.75 Ares in Sy No.416/29 of Vadakkevila Village in Kollam Taluk of Kollam District without showing the attachments over the property effected after 2.8.1999.”

¶36

The facts as disclosed in the writ petition would show

¶37

that the petitioner purchased certain item of property in an auction conducted by the Recovery Officer attached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The sale certificate has been issued by the

¶38

W.P(C) No.4616/14

¶39

-:2:-

¶40

Recovery Officer, sale deed had been registered and property is also mutated in the name of the petitioner. However, when encumbrance certificate was taken, it is seen that there were several court attachments after the issuance of the sale certificate. According to the petitioner as the attachments made by the respective Courts were after the issuance of the sale certificate, it is not binding on the petitioner and hence the petitioner seeks for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶41

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank also submits that the encumbrance as shown in the encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub Registrar's Office is invalid in so far as the attachments had been made by the Civil Court after the date of sale.

¶42

Learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the attachments had been incorporated in Book 1 maintained by the Sub Registrar's Office only on the basis of the directions issued by the Court and unless the respective courts withdraw such attachments and intimations are received, it may not be possible for the Sub Registrar to strike off the said attachments from Book 1. A statement is also filed in that regard.

¶43

Though the persons who had obtained attachment of

¶44

W.P(C) No.4616/14

¶45

-:3:-

¶46

the property after the date of sale is not made parties to the lis, taking into consideration the factual circumstances involved in the matter, I am of the view that, in the interest of justice, following directions can be issued;

¶47

(i) It is declared that the attachments effected after the date of sale, i.e., after 24/2/2009 are invalid and are liable to be vacated by the respective courts.

¶48

(ii) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respective courts with an application to vacate the order of attachments.

¶49

(iii) The respective courts shall vacate the attachments, after hearing the affected parties, if necessary, and the intimation shall be sent to the Sub Registrar's Office.

¶50

(iv) The Sub Registrar shall take cognizance of such intimation and make necessary entries in Book 1.

¶51

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶52

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶53

Rp27/06/2016

¶54

//True Copy//

¶55

P.S to Judge

B.Vijayakumar v. the Sub Registrar, Eravipuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Vijayakumar v. the Sub Registrar, Eravipuram

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

Manrothuruth Grama Panchayat Vs Kseb

M/S.T.v.Sundram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board,Triva

Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Marappa Gounder Vs K.S.E.B.

Wilfred Zacharia Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Sabunath Vs the Additional District Magistrate, Kott