Allowed

Jose George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2022WP(C)/3772/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought transfer of Registry of a property purchased from vendors who had an outstanding loan liability. The Court allowed the transfer, directing Authorities to complete it within two weeks, ensuring the Bank's charge and right to recover dues remain unaffected.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to effect transfer of Registry without delay, ensuring Bank's charge and rights to enforce security are not affected.

Jose George Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 3772 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 JOSE GEORGE

¶7

AGED 47 YEARS
S/O VARGHESE, VATTOLIL HOUSE, SULTHANKADA KARA,
ANAKARA P.O., ANAKARA VILLAGE, UDUBUMCHOLA, IDUKKI-
685 512.

¶8

2NISHA SAM,
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O JOSE GEORGE, VATTOLIL HOUSE, SULTHANKADA KARA,
ANAKARA P.O. ANAKARA VILLAGE, UDUBUMCHOLA, IDUKKI-
685 512.

¶9

BY ADVS.
GEORGE MATHEW
PRAVEEN S.
M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
MATHEW K.T.
GEORGE K.V.
STEPHY K REGI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2 TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, UDUBUMCHOLA, TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 553.

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ANAKKARA, VILLAGE OFFICE, ANAKKARA, UDUBUMCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 512.

¶14

¶15

W.P.(C) No. 3772 of 2022

¶16

4 MALANADU CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD, NO. K-352, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 553.

¶17

5PUNNACHEN ABRAHAM,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O ABRAHAM, PUTHETTU HOUSE, 8TH MILE BAHGOM,
ANAKARA VILLAGE & POST , UDUBUMCHOLA, IDUKKI-
685 512.

¶18

6ALICE PUNNACHEN,
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O PUNNACHEN, PUTHETTU HOUSE, 8TH MILE
BAHGOM, ANAKARA VILLAGE, & POST , UDUBUMCHOLA,
IDUKKI-685 512.

¶19

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

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 3772 of 2022

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 4 th day of March, 2022 .

¶25

The petitioners say that they have purchased the property involved in this case through Ext.P1. They, however, concede that there is a condition in Ext.P1 that transfer of Registry of the property can be effected only after the entire dues in a loan, availed of by the vendors, are settled by them.

¶26

The petitioners contend that the afore condition need not stand in the way of the transfer of Registry of the property in question because they expressly concede that the rights of the Bank over it, with respect to the loan liability, is unimpeached and that

¶27

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 3772 of 2022

¶29

they can proceed against it as per law de hors the transfer of Registry. They thus pray that the competent among respondents 2 and 3 be directed to effect transfer of Registry of the property covered by Ext.P1 in their favour, without any further delay.

¶30

In response, Smt.Mable C.Kurian – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that the afore relief sought for by the petitioners, through their learned counsel, Sri.George Mathew, is untenable because of the specific covenants in Ext.P1, which prohibits transfer of Registry of the property without paying off the entire liability to the Bank. She submitted that, however, if this Court is inclined to find otherwise, the competent among respondents 2 and 3 may be permitted to effect the transfer, however, only after hearing the 4^th respondent – Bank.

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 3772 of 2022

¶33

The records reveal that the notices issued to respondents 4 to 6 from this Court have been served. However, they have chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; thus inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in opposition to the prayers made by the petitioners in this writ petition.

¶34

When I evaluate Ext.P1, it is inevitable – as is also admitted – that petitioners have taken over the entire liability of a loan facility availed of by the vendors from the 4^th respondent. Obviously, therefore, even if the transfer of Registry of the property in their favour is effected, they will be fully answerable to the Bank for the said liability and nothing will stop them from proceeding against the property and for initiating action against it, under the applicable laws, for the recovery of the

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 3772 of 2022

¶37

amount due.

¶38

In such perspective, I do not see why the petitioners should be denied relief, particularly when the transfer of Registry, even if done, will not in any manner affect the 4^th respondent. In fact, this is unequivocally admitted to by Sri.George Mathew.

¶39

In the afore circumstances, since respondents 4 to 6 have chosen not to be represented before this Court, I order this writ petition and direct the competent among respondents 2 and 3 to accede to the request of the petitioners, subject to all other requirements in law being satisfied and to effect transfer of Registry of the property covered by Ext.P1; however, on the specific condition that such action will not in any manner, affect the rights of respondents 4 to 6 to proceed against the property covered by it and that they will be at full liberty to

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 3772 of 2022

¶42

initiate and pursue action as per the applicable law for recovery of the amounts due; and it will continue to be a charge over the property as per the attracted legal provisions.

¶43

The afore shall be completed by respondents 2 and 3, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I also leave liberty to respondents 2 and 3 to make an endorsement on the records about the pendency of the charge over the property in favour of the 4^th respondent, so that subsequent transactions will be suitably notified.

¶44

Finally, it is unnecessary to state specifically that on the transfer of Registry being effected, petitioners will also be allowed to remit land tax by the 3^rd respondent –

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 3772 of 2022

¶47

Village Officer, which shall also be done with an endorsement on the tax receipt as afore.

¶48

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶49

Raj/04.03.2022.

¶50

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 3772 of 2022

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3772/2022

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO 1440/1/2021
DATED 31.3.2021 OF KATTAPPANA SRO.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13.1.2022
IN WPC NO 27647 OF 2021

Jose George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose George 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beena Kannath Raphy Vs Tahsildar

P.R.Danavan Vs Aniyamma Varghese.K.

T.C. Thomas, Vs the Secretary

Mohanan.S., Vs State of Kerala

Tulsi Developers India Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Karikkakom Shree Chamundi Kshethram Trust, Vs Sub Collector