Allowed

Uco Bank v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Nov 2022WP(C)/22142/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Sub-Registrar to remove an entry of attachment on the mortgagor's property from the encumbrance certificate and books of registry. The court held that subsequent attachment does not affect the bank's title under the equitable mortgage created prior. The direction facilitates the auction purchaser's right to clear title.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to efface entry No.2 regarding the attachment order from the encumbrance certificate and books of registry and issue an encumbrance certificate free of such entries.

Uco Bank Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 22142 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

UCO BANK MG ROAD BRANCH, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI - 682 015, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER.

¶7

BY ADV SRI DEEPAK JOY.K.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 2 THE SUB-REGISTRAR, THE SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM- 682 306 *3 (REMOVED) REJI M. P., S/O PAULOSE, 10.C, ASSET CITY, CHATHARI, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM- 682 301 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 8.C, LOTUS PALLAKKATTIL HABITAT, KARINGATTUCHIRA, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM- 682 301. *4 (REMOVED) AJITHA REJI, W/O REJI M.P, 10.C, ASSET CITY, CHATHARI, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM- 682 301 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 8.C, LOTUS PALLAKKATTIL HABITAT, KARINGATTUCHIRA, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM- 682 301 **[RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE EMOVED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DT.12.7.2022 IN THE WP(C)]* 5 SIJU K. G,S/O K.G. GANGADHARAN, KUZHIYAMVELLIL HOUSE, KOCHI - 682 012

¶10

W. P. (C) No.22142 of 2022

¶11

¶12

6 SMT. S.R RAVEENA, D/O K. RAVINDRANATHAN, FLAT NO. 6, EXCEL CHAMPAK, 14/38, AKBARABAD 2ND STREET, KODAMBAAKKAM, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU - 600 024 7 P. SREEJA RAVI, W/O K. RAVINDRANATHAN, FLAT NO. 6, EXCEL CHAMPAK, 14/38, AKBARABAD 2ND STREET, KODAMBAAKKAM, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU - 600 024 BY ADVS. SMT.DEEPA V., GOVT.PLEADER ADV SRI LIJO JOSEPH (THOPPIL)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.07.2022, THE COURT ON 29.11.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W. P. (C) No.22142 of 2022

¶15

¶16

T.R. RAVI, J.

¶17

W. P. (C) No.22142 of 2022

¶18

Dated this the 29 th day of November, 2022

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner is a Nationalised Bank. Respondents 3 and 4 who were later removed from the party array, availed a loan of Rs.1,30,00,000/- from the petitioner Bank. Loan was sanctioned as per Ext.P1 dated 2.2.2016. An equitable mortgage was created on the same day as evident from Ext.P2 letter of deposit of title deeds. Default was committed in the payment of the loan amount. The account was classified as an NPA on 31.1.2018. The 3^rd respondent filed W.P.(C)No.11274 of 2018 before this Court which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing the petitioner therein to pay the overdue amount in 10 equal monthly instalments, along with the regular instalments and with a further direction to the Bank to regularise the loan account, if the overdue amounts are paid as directed. The directions in the said judgments were also not complied with by the borrowers. The petitioner Bank proceeded with SARFAESI proceedings. Notice dated 4.6.2018 under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

¶21

W. P. (C) No.22142 of 2022

¶22

¶23

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 200 2 (SARFAESI Act for short) was issued to respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner filed M.C. No.440 of 2018 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam for taking possession. The Advocate Commissioner appointed in the said proceedings took physical possession and handed over possession to the Bank, based on which M.C. No.440/2018 was closed on 30.11.2019. The 4^th respondent thereupon filed I.A.No.1956/2019 in S.A.No.339/2019 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, which was dismissed by Ext.P5 order dated 21.11.2019. The property was put in auction. The encumbrance certificate dated 21.6.2022 taken prior to the sale is produced as Ext.P6. Ext.P6 shows that the 1^st Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam had by order dated 29.11.2019 in I.A.No.4556 of 2019 in O.S.No.888 of 2019 filed by the 5^th respondent ordered attachment of the property.

¶24

The petitioner Bank issued sale notice dated 24.5.2022 fixing the date of sale as 27.6.2022. Two bidders submitted tenders and remitted the earnest money deposit. Respondents 6 and 7 purchased the property in the auction and remitted part

¶25

W. P. (C) No.22142 of 2022

¶26

¶27

consideration. The auction purchasers informed that the balance amount will be paid after the entry regarding attachment is effaced. On 28.6.2022, the petitioner addressed the 2^nd respondent for effacing the entry which is regarding an attachment effected on 29.11.2019, much after the mortgage dated 2.6.2016. Ext.P8 is the letter. Since no action was forthcoming, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation and efface entry No.2 regarding the order of attachment dated 29.11.2019 from the Books of Registry maintained at SRO, Tripunithura.

¶28

The 5^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the 5^th respondent had initiated O.S.No.888/2019 against the borrowers for recovery of money. It is stated that the property had been put in possession of the 5^th respondent as 'nerpanayam' and the 5^th respondent was permitted to reside without payment of any rent. It is stated that an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was received by the 3^rd respondent for the said arrangement without interest. It is submitted that it was while the 5^th respondent was residing in the building that he and his family were evicted based on orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,

¶29

W. P. (C) No.22142 of 2022

¶30

¶31

Ernakulam. It is seen that the order of attachment is immediately after the order Ext.P5 issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. A Division Bench of this Court in Secretary, Keechery Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar & Ors. [2020 (5) KHC 231] has held that after the creation of the mortgage of the property, subsequent attachment created in respect of the property will be free of encumbrance and it can be mutated in favour of the auction purchaser. In Federal Bank Ltd. State of Kerala & Ors.

¶32

[2016 (5) KHC 4504] , this Court has held that in view of Section 13 of the SARF AESI Act, 2002, the saleable interest is lost and any sale deed executed in violation of the statutory mandate is illegal and therefore unenforceable. In Sree Gokulam Chit and

¶33

Finance Co. Pvt. Ltc. v. Emil and Eric Hospitality Services &

¶34

Ors. [2021 (6) KHC 411] , this Court held that the right of redemption of mortgagor comes to an end on the date of publication of notice to public auction.

¶35

The counsel for the 5^th respondent submitted that admittedly, the auction purchaser has not remitted the balance consideration. The time fixed for payment of the balance consideration is over and if the sale is not complete, it is submitted

¶36

W. P. (C) No.22142 of 2022

¶37

¶38

that the auction proceedings would be invalid and it is hence submitted that the right of redemption will revive, till a sale certificate is issued. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Axis Bank v. Hilal Ahmed Bhat & Anr. [2022 (4) KHC 508(DB)] .

¶39

Reference is made to paragraph 20 of the judgment. A reading of the judgment would show that this Court had not taken a different view than what has been expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Keechery (supra) . The Court was only emphasising the authority of the Civil Court to effect an attachm ent and distinguishing it from the bar to create any lien, charge or liability on the property on the part of the borrower. In the case on hand, the person who is putting forward such a contention is not the borrower, but a person who claims to have been put in possession of the property on the basis of an arrangement termed as “nerpanayam”. The 5^th respondent has only a money claim over respondents 3 and 4 and have absolutely no claim which can override the equitable mortgage in favour of the petitioner Bank.

¶40

The counsel for the petitioner in reply referred to another judgment of the Division bench of this Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. K.P.Ramchandran & Anr. [2017 (2) KHC

¶41

W. P. (C) No.22142 of 2022

¶42

¶43

998] to submit that the mere deposit of title deeds creates the equitable mortgage and the attachment which has been effected subsequent to that cannot survive.

¶44

In Madan v. Sub Registrar, Kollam reported in [2014 (1) KLT 406] this Court held that attachments effected subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the bank do not affect the title and ownership of the petitioner over the subject property. Such attachments have no impact on the sale conducted by the Recovery Officer and the same ceases to have any effect or fall to the ground the moment the sale is confirmed in favour of the petitioner.

¶45

In view of the decision in Madan (supra) and in view of the observations made above, there can be no justification for the 2^nd respondent to refuse to efface entry No.2 regarding order of attachment effected by the First Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam from Ext.P6 encumbrance certificate and from the Books of Registry maintained by the SRO, Tripunithura. There shall hence be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to efface entry No.2 regarding order of attachment effected by the First Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam from Ext.P6 encumbrance certificate and

¶46

W. P. (C) No.22142 of 2022

¶47

¶48

from the Books of Registry maintained by the said respondent and issue an encumbrance certificate without such entries regarding attachment. Necessary orders shall be issued within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2^nd respondent for compliance.

¶49

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

T.R. RAVI

JUDGE

dsn

W. P. (C) No.22142 of 2022

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22142/2022

¶57

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶58

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DATED 02.02.2016 SENT BY THE PETITIONER BANK.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEED DATED 02.02.2016 SENT BY THE PETITIONER BANK.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.11274/2018 DATED 13.04.2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATES COURT, ERNAKULAM IN MC NO.440/2018 DATED 30.11.2019
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO. 1956/2019 DATED 21.11.2019 IN SA NO. 339/2019 OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO. 7604/22 DATED 21.06.2022 ISSUED BY SRO THRIPUNITHURA
Exhibit P7	THE SALE NOTICE DATED 24.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	THE LETTER DATED 28.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Uco Bank v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moyan Ali, Vs Thennala Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, No. F 720

Lissy Babu Vs State of Kerala

Suja C. Vs Sale Officer

Board of Management of the Kandala Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.T-197 Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(G)

Razak K. Vs National Highway Authority of India

Kayanadan Stores Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam