Allowed

Rajesh M.K. Sulabha, v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Kerala HC21 Mar 2022WP(C)/5280/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by an auction purchaser seeking release of a prior title deed pledged by the judgment debtor to a bank. The court directed the petitioner to clear the bank dues and the bank to return the document within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to clear the amount due to the 3rd respondent; upon clearance, the 3rd respondent must return the original title deed within two weeks.

Rajesh M.K. Sulabha, Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative… — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 5280 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

RAJESH M.K. SULABHA,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. M.K. SULABHA, DEEPA NIVAS, KANNANKARA P.O.,
THANNEERMUKKAM NORTH VILLAGE, CHETHALA TALUK,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688527.
BY ADV P.K.PAMALA

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL),
PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI, PAINAVU-685603.
2ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL),
THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA P.O., PIN-685584.
3THE KERALA BANK (FORMERLY IDCB),
FIRST FLOOR, RIGHT SIDE BUILDING TO ENTRANCE OF
PRIVATE BUS, STAND, PALA-THODUPUZHA ROAD,
THODUPUZHA BRANCH, THODUPUZHA-685608, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT MANAGER.
4SABU JOSEPH,AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, ARAKKAL HOUSE, KUMARAMANGALAM
VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685608.
BY ADVS.
GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA
K.BIJU
PREMSON PAUL
K.R.SAJITH

¶8

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

W.P.(C).No.5280/2022

¶10

¶11

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶12

-------------------------------W.P.(C).No.5280 of 2022

¶13

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2022

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶16

i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order directing 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd respondent to release the Exhibit P8 the prior title deed to the Petitioner on fulfillment of the loan debt without any delay.

¶17

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order directing the release of Exhibit P8 Prior title deed.

¶18

iii. Granting such other relief's as the petitioner may apply and the court may deem fit and proper to grant.

¶19

Petitioner herein is the auction purchaser of a property obtained as per the orders in E.P.No.28/2019 in ST No.3784/2016. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute

¶20

W.P.(C).No.5280/2022

¶21

¶22

owner and in possession of the property in Survey No.346/10 (Old Survey No.1277/9/4) of 2.10 Ares of land and building having No.VII/120 by virtue of the order in E.A.No.53/2021 in E.P.No.28/2019 of the Court of Munsiff, Thodupuzha. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner effected mutation in his favour after complying with all the legal proceedings. The 30 years encumbrance certificate shows that no encumbrances of any sort is there to the property. According to the petitioner, there are prospective buyers for the property and for the sale of property the prior title deed is essential. But the petitioner came to know that the judgment debtor in the above case (4^th respondent) had pledged the prior deed of the property with the Kerala State Co-operative Bank, Thodupuzha Branch. The petitioner requested the 3^rd respondent Bank to return the documents. The 3^rd respondent has taken a stand that even if the loan is closed, the original title deed shall be given only to the 4^th respondent, who is the person originally pledged the property. The petitioner says that he informed the 3^rd respondent that he is ready to pay the amount due to the 3^rd respondent Bank. But the 3^rd respondent refused to handover the title deed. In such

¶23

W.P.(C).No.5280/2022

¶24

¶25

situation, this writ petition is filed.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I also

¶27

heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent. I heard the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent also.

¶28

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property in the light of Ext.P1 auction certificate. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner mutated the property in his favour and he is in possession of the property. It is also an admitted fact that there is some due to the 3^rd respondent Bank from the 4^th respondent. The petitioner is ready to clear the amount due to the 3^rd respondent from the 4^th respondent. According to the 3^rd respondent, the 4^th respondent and his wife availed loan and there is amount due to the Bank. The learned counsel takes me through paragraph 5 of the counter filed by the 3^rd respondent, which is extracted hereunder:

¶29

“5. It is submitted that the said property which is mentioned in Exhibit Pl Auction Certificate was mortgaged to the 3^rd Respondent Bank by the 4^th Respondent herein by deposit of the title deed. The said property was free from all encumbrances and

¶30

W.P.(C).No.5280/2022

¶31

¶32

the Bank is having a valid right over the property. The details of the credit facilities availed by the 4^th Respondent and his wife are as follows. The 4^th Respondent had availed a Cash Credit Facility of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was sanctioned on 14.03.2013 and subsequently declared as a Non- Performing Asset on 01.11.2019. Similarly, the wife of the 4^th Respondent had also availed two Credit Facilities wherein the 4^th Respondent is the guarantor. The wife of the 4^th Respondent had availed a Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 4,00,000/- which was sanctioned on 26.09.2011 and another Ordinary Loan of Rs.1,10,000/- which was sanctioned on 30.03.2019. Both these loans were declared as NPA on 26.06.2019 and 30.11.2019 respectively. Since the tenure of all these Credit Facilities have expired, the total outstanding amount due to the Bank in all the three accounts as on 14.02.2022 is Rs 15,18,650/(Rs.5,98,622 + Rs.7,77,509/- + Rs.1,42,519/-).”

¶33

5. Since the petitioner is the absolute owner of the

¶34

property and he obtained the property through court auction, the petitioner is entitled the prior document also, if he is ready to clear the dues to the 3^rd respondent from the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent has no case that the orders passed by the civil court is challenged by him. Moreover, as stated above,

¶35

W.P.(C).No.5280/2022

¶36

¶37

the petitioner is ready to clear the entire dues to the 3^rd respondent also. In such situation, the 4^th respondent cannot take a stand that the documents will not be handed over to the petitioner.

¶38

In such circumstances, there can be a direction to the petitioner to clear the entire amount due to the 3^rd respondent from the 4^th respondent and there can be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to release the documents to the petitioner. The petitioner is free to recover the amount paid to the 3^rd respondent from the 4^th respondent by initiating appropriate proceedings. The contentions of the 4^th respondent is also left open.

¶39

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶40

The petitioner is free to clear the amount due to the 3^rd respondent from the 4^th respondent and his wife.

¶41

Once the amount is cleared by the petitioner as directed above, the 3^rd respondent will return the original of Ext.P8 title deed of the property to the petitioner, within two weeks

¶42

W.P.(C).No.5280/2022

¶43

¶44

from the date on which the amount is cleared.

¶45

The petitioner is at liberty to recover the amount from the 4^th respondent and his wife, and the contentions of the 4^th respondent and his wife in that dispute are also left open.

¶46

sd/-

¶47

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

¶50

W.P.(C).No.5280/2022

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5280/2022

¶53

`PETITION`	`ER EXH`	`IBITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION` `CERTIFICATE DATED 17/02/2021 ISSUED BY` `HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF` `ENCUMBRANCE ON THE PROPERTY DATED` `8/3/2021 ISSUED BY KUMARAMANGALAM` `VILLAGE OFFICE.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT` `DATED 22/04/2021.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE BY DELIVERY REPORT` `DATED 19/11/2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT,` `THODUPUZHA.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY WARRANT` `DATED 20/11/2021, BY MUNSIFF COURT,` `THODUPUZHA.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE DELI VERY (KYCHIT)` `DATED 20/11/2021 BY THE MUNSIFF COURT,` `THODUPUZHA.`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION` `CERTIFICATE DATED 14/12/2021, BY` `KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE` `THODUPUZHA.`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF` `THE PRIOR TITLE DEED NO.1754 OF 2011` `DATED 23/06/2011 SRO THODUPUZHA.`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION` `LETTER DATED 24/12/2021 ISSUED TO THE` `3RD RESPONDENT BANK TO RELEASE TITLE` `DEED.`

Rajesh M.K. Sulabha, v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh M.K. Sulabha, v. the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

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

Muzammil Varikkottil Vs Ministry of Civil Aviation

Muhammed Arshad P.K Vs Ministry of Civil Aviation

Putheripadam Sunni Jama-Ath Mayyathankara Jama-Ath Palli Vs a. Shahul Hameed

Sreeja Vs Anilkumar P

Dr.Reema Thomas Kochupurakkal Vs T.S.Grancy

Abhishek S Pai, Vs the Government Medical College