Allowed

Jasmine Joseph v. the Sub Registrar

Kerala HC10 Mar 2022WP(C)/3422/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, who purchased property in 2019, filed a writ petition challenging an attachment entry in the encumbrance certificate made in 2021 in favor of a third respondent. The court held that an attachment subsequent to the purchase cannot bind the buyer and directed effacement of the entry.

What did the court decide?

Direct the 1st respondent to immediately efface Entry No.4 in Ext.P5 and reissue the Encumbrance Certificate.

Jasmine Joseph Vs the Sub Registrar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3422 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JASMINE JOSEPH AGED 39 YEARS

¶8

W/O. JAISON MATHEW, MANIYAKKUPARA, VALIYATHOVALA, NEDUMKANDAM P.O, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI 685 553

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS TOM E. JACOB

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE SUB REGISTRAR UDUMBANCHOLA, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI 685 515

¶13

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE OFFICE, UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI 685 553

¶14

3 M/S. KLM NIDHI LTD, KLM TOWER, COLLEGE ROAD, KOTHAMANGALAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SREERANJINI R, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. VINOD H, RESIDING AT EDAYAPUREDDATHU CHALIL HOUSE, ENANALLOOR P.O, KALAMPOOR PIN 686 673

¶15

4 BENNY JOSEPH AGED 46 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, ULLATTIL HOUSE, VALIYATHOVALA P.O, PAMPADUMPARA, IDUKKI, 685 514

¶16

5 SHANTI BENNY AGED 40 YEARS W/O. BENNY JOSEPH, ULLATTIL HOUSE, VALIYATHOVALA P.O, PAMPADUMPARA, IDUKKI 685 514

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SMT. MABLE .C .KURIAN SR.G.P

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, THE

¶20

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 3422 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioner asserts that she is the owner of the property involved in this case and that she purchased it through Ext.P1 from respondents 4 and 5 on 25.11.2019. She submits that, on the strength of the said transaction, the transfer of Registry of the property in question has already been effected in her favour and has remitted land tax on it.

¶25

2 . The petitioner says that, however, when she obtained Ext.P5 Encumbrance Certificate for the purpose of servicing a loan which she has already obtained, it was revealed that Entry No.4 therein, reflects an attachment over the property in favour of the 3 rd respondent, which is stated to be a Company. She points out that, this attachment, as evident from Ext.P5, has been made only on 07.09.2021 on the strength of Ext.P3 order, which itself is dated 30.07.2021. She thus contends that since the attachment was much after she purchased the property, the impugned Entry in Ext.P5 is illegal and unlawful and prays that same be directed to be effaced.

¶26

3 . I have heard Sri.Liji J. Vadakedom, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Mable C. Kurian, learned Senior Government

¶27

WP(C) NO. 3422 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents.

¶30

3 . Even though notices from this Court has been validly served

¶31

on respondents 3 and 4, they have chosen not to appear in person or to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in answer to the various allegations of the petitioner and that they do not stand in the way of reliefs being granted to him as prayed for. As far as respondent No.5 is concerned, the endorsement on file is that she has not yet received the notice, but it is relevant that the 4 th respondent - who has done so - is her own husband, who is also a co-owner. In any event of the matter, since respondents 4 and 5 have already sold the property, I am certain that this Court will be justified in disposing of the matter even in the absence of respondent No.5.

¶32

4 . The learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.Mable C. Kurian, submitted that the impugned Entry in Ext.P5 has been recorded because the competent Civil Court had issued Ext.P3 order. She submitted that, therefore, if this Court is inclined to find otherwise, the Sub Registrar will have no objection in effacing it.

¶33

5 . The materials on record would reveal that the petitioner purchased the property on 25.11.2019 through Ext.P1; while the 3 rd

¶34

WP(C) NO. 3422 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

respondent obtained an attachment over it through Ext.P3, only on 30.07.2021.

¶37

6 . It is now well settled, through a bevy of judgments of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an attachment subsequent to the purchase can never bind the petitioner.

¶38

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the 1 st respondent – Sub Registrar to immediately efface Entry No.4 in Ext.P5 and either reissue the same or issue a fresh Encumbrance Certificate to the petitioner as per usual terms.

¶39

SD/-

¶40

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶41

¶42

WP(C) NO. 3422 OF 2022

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3422/2022

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1	THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2291/2019 DATED 25-11- 2019 OF THE SRO UDUMBANCHOLA
Exhibit P2	THE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 21-05-2020 SHOWING REMITTANCE OF TAX FOR THE PROPERTY OF 5.66 ARES IN SY.NO. 46/1/ OF PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE (FOR THE YEAR 2020-21)
Exhibit P2A	THE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 7-09-2021 SHOWING REMITTANCE OF TAX FOR THE PROPERTY OF 5.66 ARES IN SY.NO. 46/1 OF PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE (FOR THE EYAR 2021-22)
Exhibit P3	THE COPY OF THE I.A NO. 1/2021 IN CMA (ARB) NO. 362/2021 BEFORE THE SUB COURT ERNAKULAM DATED 30-07- 2021
Exhibit P4	THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8-09-2021 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD, ERATTAYAR BRANCH CONFIRMING THE DEPOSIT OF SALE DEED NO. 2291/2019 (EXHIBIT P1) BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE SAID BANK AS SECURITY FOR HOUSING LOAN
Exhibit P5	THE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 11-1- 2022 ISSUED FROM THE SRO UDUMBANCHOLA FOR THE PERIOD FROM 26-11-2019 TO 24-11-2021 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF 5.66 ARES IN SY.NO. 46/1 OF PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE
Exhibit P6	THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24-7-2015 IN W.A NO. 612/2015 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P7	THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14-09-2021 IN W.P9C0 NO. 17868/2021 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT

Jasmine Joseph v. the Sub Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasmine Joseph v. the Sub Registrar

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

Ashique Ali Vs State of Kerala

Sojan Jacob @ Sojan Vs District Collector

A.A. Pareed, Vs State of Kerala

Green Worth Rocks and Sands Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Naseema.C.M, Vs the State of Kerala

Babu.K Vs State of Kerala