Disposed

Syndicate Bank v. Sub Registrar

Kerala HC20 Mar 2017WP(C)/17527/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Bank challenged illegal attachment of mortgaged property. Court noted subsequent order dismissing opposing application and directing release, disposing petition by quietus. Petitioner to monitor further interdictions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by quietus recording that the attachment had already been directed to be lifted by the Additional District Judge.

Syndicate Bank Vs Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/29TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 17527 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

----------

¶8

SYNDICATE BANK, PANNIYANKARA BRANCH, 20/1197, JASMINE BUILDING, P.B.NO.728, MAIN ROAD, PANNIYANKARA KALLAI PO, KOZHIKODE 673 003.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.S. KALKURA, SC, SYNDICATE BANK

¶10

RESPONDENTS : -----------

¶11

1. SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, MEENACHANTA, ARAKKINAR, KOZHIKODE 673 028.

¶12

2. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD 1ST FLOOR, KP CHEEKUTTYS MANSION, SCB ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM 682 019, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

3. MAMMOOTY KAMBA, WHITE HOUSE, NEAR PAYYANAKKAL KAV, KALLAI, KOZHIKODE 673 003.

¶14

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINITHA B. HARIRAJ R2 BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 17527 of 2016 (M)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1:	TRUE COPY OF LETTER HANDING OVER TITLE DEEDS OF PROPERTIES, DATED 24.9.2003, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION OF DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS, DATED 27.10.2003, EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER
P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.3333/2002 OF SRO MEENCHANTHA, DEPOSITED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.10.2015, IN WP (C) NO.30152/2015 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.2.2008 IN IA NO.900/2008 IN OP(ARB) NO.196/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT II, ERNAKULAM
P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY MORTGAGED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 7.9.2015
P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.3.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15.3.2016, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
P9:	COPY OF THE ORDER DT 25/8/2009 IN OP NO.196/2008 BEFORE THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE. ERNAKULAM.
P10:	COPY OF THE LETTER DT 22/4/2010 ISSUED BY THE
	HON'BLE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM TO THE SUB REGISTRAR, MEENCHANTHA, KOZHIKODE.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

P.A. TO JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.17527 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2017

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The property mortgaged to the petitioner Bank by the 3rd respondent in the year 2003, for availing a housing loan, has been attached in the year 2008, pursuant to Ext.P5 order obtained by the 2nd respondent, who is an unsecured creditor of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, according to the petitioner Bank, the attachment effected by the 1st respondent in compliance with Ext.P5 order is illegal, since the petitioner has prior charge over the mortgaged property. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 representation before the concerned statutory authority. It is thus seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition is filed.

¶30

Today, petitioner has produced Exts.P9 and P10 along with I.A.No.4268 of 2017, whereby the application submitted by the 2nd respondent before the District Court, Ernakulam is seen dismissed as per its order dated 25.08.2009, and as per Ext.P10 dated 22.04.2010, the office of the Sub Registrar, Meenchantha, Kozhikode was directed to

¶31

W.P.(C) No.17527 of 2016 2

¶32

release the attachment noted thereunder. In view of the developments that have taken place after the filing of the writ petition consequent to the production of said documents, I think it is only appropriate that the writ petition is given a quietus by recording that already the I Additional District Judge, Ernakulam had issued direction to the Sub Registrar concerned to lift the attachment. If the petitioner is saddled with any other interdiction by any statutory or governmental agencies, petitioner will be at liberty to produce the said order, and lift the attachment accordingly.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶35

St/20.03.2017

Syndicate Bank v. Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syndicate Bank v. Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Geetha Kumari T.S Vs State of Kerala

Thwalha Hassan Vs the District Collector, Malappuram

John Zachariah Vs the State of Kerala

George Mathew Vs Shynamol

Damayanthi Vs Smt.K.S.Geetha

Jaziya M Vs the Regional Passport Officer