Disposed

Sundaram Home Finance Limited, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jun 2024WP(C)/16498/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A housing finance company sought direction to the Village Officer to effect mutation of property purchased through SARFAESI sale. The court relied on precedent holding R.O.R. production optional and directed mutation action within three weeks of producing the registered sale certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 3rd respondent Village Officer to act in accordance with law on mutation within three weeks of production of the registered sale certificate.

Sundaram Home Finance Limited, Vs State of Kerala — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 16498 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUNDARAM HOME FINANCE LIMITED, AGED 33 YEARS

¶8

FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED, HAVING ZONAL OFFICE AT ELIZABETH ALEXANDER MEMORIAL BUILDING, IIND FLOOR, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI682031, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER, ABU ROSHAN ANDREWS, S/O LATE JOSHY CYRIAC, RESIDING AT CHUVAPPUNKAL HOUSE, KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANADU, PIN - 673121 BY ADVS. VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE AMRITHA.J KURUVILLA MATHEW VIPIN C. VARGHESE JISHNU A.L. KRISHNAPRIYA M.S.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001

¶11

2 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), THIRUVALLA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689101

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER

¶13

KAVIYOOR VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY-KAVIYOOR ROAD, NEAR GOVT. AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 689582

¶14

BY ADV.AJITH VISWANATHAN – GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C).No. 16498 of 2024

¶17

..2..

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2024

¶20

Petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 3^rd respondent/Village Officer to effect mutation in respect of the subject property in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is a Housing Finance Institution. The subject property, which was mortgaged with the petitioner by its owners, was sold in terms of the SARFAESI Act, when the mortgagors comm itted default. Initially, the Sub-Registrar concerned refused to register the sale certificate. As per Ext.P5 judgment, the Sub-Registrar concerned was directed to register the sale certificate and also to efface off the

¶21

attachments noted in the records of the registry. Thereafter, the petitioner contacted the 3^rd

¶22

W.P.(C).No. 16498 of 2024

¶23

respondent/Village Officer and enquired about mutation. The 3^rd Respondent, though stated that the revenue recovery proceedings is pending, was, however, reluctant to show necessary records to the petitioner. It was also not clarified as to whether the property will be mutated or not, pursuant to the registration. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation, followed by Ext.P8 communication. However, there was no action on the part of the 3^rd respondent/Village Officer. The Writ Petition is premised on the above facts, seeking a direction to effect mutation, as and when registered sale certificate is produced by the petitioner.

¶24

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

¶25

W.P.(C).No. 16498 of 2024

¶26

..4..

¶27

3. Learned Government Pleader would submit that, it is the non-production of Record of Right Certificate (R.O.R.), which stands in the way of mutation. I am afraid that, the contention of the 3^rd respondent is in the teeth of the law declared

¶28

by this Court in Jacob P.C. v. Village Officer, Ernakulam and Another [2020 (4) KHC 167] , wherein it was held that, the production of R.O.R. is only optional and not mandatory and further that, the registering authorities have no jurisdiction to refuse registration only on the ground that R.O.R. certificate has not been produced.

¶29

4. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent/Village Officer to take action in accordance with law in the context of effecting mutation of the subject property, once the petitioner produce the registered sale certificate before the 3^rd respondent. The action

¶30

W.P.(C).No. 16498 of 2024

¶31

..5..

¶32

directed above shall be taken within a period of three weeks from the date of such production of

¶33

the registered sale certificate.

¶34

The Writ Petition (Civil) is disposed of as above.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C).No. 16498 of 2024

¶39

..6..

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16498/2024

¶41

PETITIONER EXHI	BITS
Exhibit P1	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SECTION 13 (2) WAS ISSUED ON	NOTICE UNDER 01.12.2017
Exhibit P2	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.05.2018 IS PETITIONER BANK	POSSESSION SUED BY THE
Exhibit P3	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DATED 10.10.2023 ISSUED PETITIONER BANK	SALE NOTICE BY THE
Exhibit P4	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF	THE SALE
	CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN	FAVOUR OF
	SMRITHANEV G.P AND ANJ 03.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE PET	U.P. DATED ITIONER
Exhibit P5	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE W.P. (CIVIL) NO.33848/2 21.03.2024 PASSED BY THIS HO	JUDGMENT IN 023 DATED N'BLE COURT
Exhibit P6	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY REPRESENTATION DATED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER	OF THE 27.03.2024
Exhibit P7	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DETAILS ISSUED BY THE POSTA OF INDIA DATED 30.03.2024	TRACK RECORD L AUTHORITY
Exhibit P8	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY REPRESENTATION DATED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER	OF THE 09.04.2024
Exhibit P9	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY	OF THE
	ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2024	BY THE 3RD

Sundaram Home Finance Limited, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundaram Home Finance Limited, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.a.Martha @ Mary James, Vs C.a.Varghese

M.Thapasi, Vs the State of Kerala

Beena Soman Vs Revenue Divisional Officer (Rdo)

Canara Bank, Asset Recovery & Management ( Arm) Branch Vs The Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Salim Aniyan Kunnummel Vs Authorized Officer

Abdul Saleem K.M. Vs the District Registrar