IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12721 of 2008(M)
1. K.VENU KUMAR, S/O.P.KRISHNA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. SARO.A, S/O.K.VENUKUMAR, -DO-
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA STATE
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
4. MR.A.K.PADMA KUMAR, S/O.P.KRISHNA PILLAI
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.SOHAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.L.SAJEEVAN, SC, KSFE LTD.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/05/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 12721 OF 2008 - M
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th May, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners and the 4th respondent are the children of one P.
Krishna Pillai. According to the petitiners, Krishna Pillai was a
guarantor to the loans availed by the 4th respondent and had
mortgaged landed properties along with the buildings belonging to
him as security for the liability. It is stated that subsequent to the
mortgage, the mortgagor settled portions of the properties in favour
of petitioners 1 and 2 and a portion of the same property has been
settled in favour of the 4th respondent, who according to the
petitioners is the defaulter. Petitioners contend that in partial
discharge of the liability they have paid certain amount and in this
writ petition what is sought for by them is a direction to respondent
No. 3 not to proceed against the entire property given as security by
the guarantor as it is necessary to realise their debts and they
should confine the proceedings against the property stands in the
name of the 4th respondent.
W.P.(C) No.12721 OF 2008-M
-2-
2. True, as contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, if coercive action is not necessary against the entire
property to realise the dues, it is not expected that the respondents
should proceed against the entire property but should confine to the
required extent of the property alone.
3. But regarding their contention that in the process, the
extent that is held by them should be left alone, this Court will not
be justified in issuing such a direction as in law, it is for respondents
1 to 3 to decide how much extent of land should be proceeded and
which portion of the same should be proceeded against. Therefore,
leaving it open to respondents 1 to 3 to decide as to how much of
the mortgaged property should be proceeded against and which
portion of the same, this writ petition is disposed of.
4. Yet another point that is raised by the petitioners is that
they should be extended the benefit of one time settlement scheme
and they should be made known to the exact extent of the liability
to which they are answerable. Petitioners are also making reference
to Ext. P5 judgment where this Court already issued a direction to
consider the petitioners’ claim for one time settlement scheme. In
W.P.(C) No.12721 OF 2008-M
-3-
view of the above, I direct that the respondents shall within two
weeks from now intimate the petitioners the exact extent of their
liability and consider their request for one time settlement, provided
if the scheme is now in vogue.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-