IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28254 of 2010(F)
1. BINU K.MATHEW, S/O.LATE T.K.MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DY.TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,
... Respondent
2. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
3. B.MOHANKUMAR, KAMBIMELETHIL VEEDU,
4. VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, VINAYAKA BHAVAN,
5. GEETHA VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, KFC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :05/10/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No. 28254 of 2010-F
----------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner claims to be a bonafide purchaser of a property
having an extent of 19 ares and 70 sq.meters comprised in
R.S.No.120/5 in Block No.31 of Pathanamthitta District. The
property was purchased in the joint name of petitioner, his father
and the fourth respondent. The vendors of the property had
purchased the same from the third respondent, by virtue of sale
Deed No.1075 of 2004.
2. It is revealed that the third respondent had created a
mortgage with respect to the property, in favour of the second
respondent, before the sale of the property, for securing a loan
availed. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan,
recovery steps were initiated and Ext.P2 notice was issued under the
provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act proclaiming sale of
the property. Contention of the petitioner is that, the steps were
initiated without issuing any notice or intimation to the petitioner. It
is stated that if the property is sold, it will cause irreparable loss and
injury to the petitioner. Hence the petitioner seeks direction to
W.P(C) No. 28254 of 2010-F 2
restrain recovery steps, on expressing willingness to wipe off the
liability due to the second respondent.
3. In a statement filed on behalf of the second respondent,
it is mentioned that a working capital loan to the tune of
Rs.10,00,000/- was sanctioned to a firm to which the persons who
had sold the property to the petitioner were partners. It is stated
that consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan,
revenue recovery steps were initiated and inspite of repeated notices
the borrowers have not cared to settle payment. Contention of the
second respondent is that the petitioner is not a party as far as the
loan transaction is concerned and she has no right to challenge the
recovery steps. Under the above circumstances the second
respondent is not favouring in permitting the petitioner to pay off
the liability in instalments.
4. Having considered facts and circumstances, I am of the
opinion that eventhough interference on merit is not possible, the
petitioner can be permitted to pay off the entire liability within a
short period. Pursuant to an interim order issued by this Court on
13.9.2010 the petitioner had already remitted a sum of
Rs.50,000/-. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, she
W.P(C) No. 28254 of 2010-F 3
is ready to pay off the entire balance amount within six months.
5. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is
disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to keep in abeyance
further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P2 notice, provided the
petitioner remits the entire balance amount to respondents 1 and 2
in 6 (six) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before
30.11.2010 and on or before the last day of succeeding months.
6. It is further directed that on settlement of the entire
payment, the respondents 1 and 2 shall release the title deeds with
respect to the property in question to the petitioner.
7. It is made clear that on the event of default in payment
of any of the instalments the respondents 1 and 2 will be free to
proceed with further steps. It is further made clear that the above
relief is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner is
precluded from raising any subsequent challenge against such
proceedings, either before this Court or before any other forum.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
//True Copy//
ab P.A to Judge
W.P(C) No. 28254 of 2010-F 4