Disposed

Sudheer Kumar v. the Secretary

Kerala HC6 Dec 2023WP(C)/4663/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner aggrieved by auction of property mortgaged to Respondents 1 and 2 sought court's direction. Court directed the Special Sale Officer to consider the petitioner's claim petition and decide within one month without pronouncing on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent-Special Sale Officer to consider Ext.P13 Claim Petition and take appropriate decision within one month.

Sudheer Kumar Vs the Secretary — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4663 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/3RD PARTY AGGRIEVED:

¶7

SUDHEER KUMAR

¶8

AGED 54 YEARS

¶9

S/O.GANGADHARAN, AISWARYA, NEDUNGOLAM P.O.,
MEENADU CHERRY, PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

 MINI GANGADHARAN
 SHRI.N.SHIVA PRASADAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE SECRETARY POOTHAKKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.2944, POOTHAKKULAM P.O., KOLLAM TALUK-691302.

¶14

2 THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, POOTHAKKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.2944, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), NEAR COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691013.

¶15

3RAKHI L.R.,
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O.LALITHAMBIKA, L.R.SADANAM,
NEDUNGOLAM P.O., MEENADU CHERRY,
PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK-691334.

¶16

4LALITHAMBIKA,
AGED 60 YEARS
D/O.SAROJINI, L.R.SADANAM,
NEDUNGOLAM P.O., MEENADU CHERRY,
PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK-691334.

¶17

WP(C) No.4663 of 2020

¶18

¶19

BY ADVS.
 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
 SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

WP(C) No.4663 of 2020

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2023

¶25

The petitioner, a third party to the proposed auction sale to be conducted on 20.02.2020 by the 2^nd respondent, is before this Court, aggrieved by the arbitrary and unfair recovery proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 over the property purchased by him.

¶26

The petitioner states that the 1^st respondent has to initiate criminal proceedings for cheating against respondents 3 and 4 for having sold the property already mortgaged to the Bank. Though the petitioner sent a Notice to the 1^st respondent narrating the real affairs and cheating and fraud employed by respondents 3 and 4 to the 1^st respondent, no criminal proceedings were initiated for cheating, against respondents 3 and 4, which is a clear indication that the 1^st respondent has acted mala fide against the petitioner's property in connivance with respondents 3 and 4.

¶27

¶28

WP(C) No.4663 of 2020

¶29

The 3^rd respondent after having obtained a loan of

¶30

₹20 lakhs mortgaging the above 18 Cents of properties together with 8 Cents of properties owned by the 4^th respondent and 5 Cents owned by herself, executed Sale Deed No.3017/2012 of Paravur Sub Registry Office in favor of the petitioner's sister Mrs.Thara, and subsequently Mrs.Thara had conveyed the above 3.76 Ares in Re-survey No.414/17/3 and 3.76 Ares in Re-survey No.414/17/4 in favor of the petitioner by virtue of Sale Deed No.1623/2013 of Paravur Sub Registry Office.

¶31

Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the Special Sale Officer is now appointed and the Bank cannot act in the lines suggested by the petitioner as of now. Ext.P13 has been filed by the petitioner, invoking Rule 90 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969.

¶32

In the circumstances of the case, it would be only appropriate that the 2^nd respondent-Special Sale Officer

¶33

WP(C) No.4663 of 2020

¶34

¶35

considers Ext.P13 and takes appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law within a reasonable time.

¶36

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent-Special Sale Officer to consider Ext.P13 Claim Petition of the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law within a period of one month. It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced anything on merits, on the claim made by the petitioner.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) No.4663 of 2020

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4663/2020

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 12.11.2015
SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED
14.11.2015.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COP OF SALE DEED NO.3017/2012 OF
PARAVUR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1623/2013 OF
PARAVUR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE IN FAVOR
OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT IN FAVOR OF
THE PETITIONER FOR THE PROPERTIES
COVERED BY SALE DEED NO.1623/2013 OF
PARAVUR SUB REGISTRY OFFICE FOR THE
YEAR 2014-2015.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT IN FAVOR OF
THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2019-2020.
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF AUCTION NOTICE PUBLISHED
IN MATHRUBHUMI NEWS PAPER DATED
27.11.2019 WHEREIN THE PROPERTIES
FORMERLY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3
AND 4 WHICH INCLUDE THE PROPERTIES
PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER IS ALSO
SEENENLISTED AS 49TH AMONG THE 49
ITEMS OF INTENDED SALE BY AUCTION.
EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF F.I.R NO.969/2015
REGISTERED AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS 3
AND 4 AT THE INSTANCE OF THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9TRUECOPYOFAWARDIN
A.R.C.NO.173/2015 DATED 12.08.2015 OF
THE CO-OPERATIVE J.R.(GENERAL) KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER TO SET-ASIDE THE AWARD
PASSED IN A.R.C.NO.173/2015 AND TO
IMPLEAD HIM AS ADDITIONAL 3RD
DEFENDANT.

¶46

WP(C) No.4663 of 2020

¶47

¶48

EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED
30.01.2020SUBMITTEDBEFORER1
REQUESTING MERCY ON HIM TO POSTPONE
AND KEEP AWAY FROM THE AUCTION SALE
PROPOSEDTOBECONDUCTEDON
20.02.2020.
Exhibit P12TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 20/11/2023
Exhibit P13TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 17/11/2023

Sudheer Kumar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheer Kumar v. the Secretary

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

Aswathy Mohan Vs the Manager

Usha.K., Vs Vallikkunnu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.M4

Sivan. v, Vs the Karamana Co-Operative Urban Bank LTD.T.1761

Abdu Saleem C.T., Vs M/S. Indus Ind Bank Limited

Nizar Vs M/S. Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.

Manju Shaju Vs Esaf Small Finance Bank Limited