IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 901 of 2007(Y)
1. S.ABHILASH, S/O. LAKSHMANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
3. THE SPL. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR)
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
For Respondent :SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :17/08/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 901 of 2007
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner filed OS No.616/2003 before the Sub
Court, Ernakulam, for specific performance of an
agreement for sale of the properties covered by Exhibit P2
sale deed between the petitioner and one Treesa Jojy. The
suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner consequent to
which the Court caused to execute Exhibit P2 sale deed in
respect of the property in favour of the petitioner which has
been duly registered with Edappilly Sub Registrar’s Office.
Subsequently, when the petitioner came to understand that
the original of the prior deed has been deposited with the
Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited as a security for
loan amounts due from the said Treesa Jojy to the KSFE,
the petitioner approached the KSFE for return of the
documents. They refused to part with the title deed on the
ground that they have a first charge over the property in so
W.P.(C).No. 901 of 2007 2
far as the charge itself was created prior to the agreement
for sale between the petitioner and the said Treesa Jojy. It is
in the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ
petition seeking the following reliefs:
i. call for records connecting Exts.P-1 to P-8 and
quash Ext.P-8 order issued by the 1st respondent,
by issuing a writ of certiorari;
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the respondents
to release the basic title deed No.6137/1995 of
SRO., Edappally and connected documents to the
petitioner forthwith;
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the respondents
not to proceed against the property of the
petitioner covered by Ext.P-2 for recovery of
arrears if any due from Smt. Treesa Joji, the former
owner of the said property
2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit
opposing the prayers in the writ petition on the ground that
they have a first charge in respect of the property.
3. I need not consider the contentions of the petitioner
on merits, since the petitioner has now chosen to pay all
the amounts due to KSFE from the said Treesa Jojy. To
prove the same the petitioner has produced Exhibit P9
receipts for payment of amounts due to the KSFE. The
W.P.(C).No. 901 of 2007 3
learned standing counsel for the KSFE also agrees that the
entire amounts due in respect of the charge in favour of the
KSFE has already been paid off and there is no subsisting
charge on the property in favour of the KSFE.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to return the title deeds of the
property covered by Exhibit P2 to the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
In the peculiar facts of the case, it would be open to the
KSFE to consider the representation filed by the petitioner
seeking OTS benefits commenced notwithstanding the fact
that the petitioner has paid the amount.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE.
rkc