IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22816 of 2008(N)
1. SUKUMARAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :29/07/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.22816 of 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 29th July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India to quash Ext.P6 sale proclamation and for a direction to exclude
Ext.P1 property from sale. First respondent is the decree holder and
second respondent the judgment debtor. For realisation of the decree
debt, the mortgaged property was sought to be sold in the execution
proceedings. Under Ext.P6 sale proclamation, mortgaged property was
proclaimed for sale. The case of the petitioner is that subsequent to
the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner, second
respondent-judgment debtor who is the son of the petitioner, along
with the father of the petitioner who settled the property in favour of
the petitioner, mortgaged the property in favour of the first
respondent Bank, and, therefore, first respondent mortgagee cannot
claim any right over the property obtained by the petitioner prior to
the mortgage, and, therefore, his property is to be excluded.
2. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and first respondent, I do not find any reason either to
W.P.(C) No.22816 of 2008
2
quash Ext.P6 sale proclamation or to issue a direction to exclude the
property as claimed by the petitioner. What could be sold by the court
is only the property mortgaged in favour of the first respondent Bank
by the second respondent judgment debtor. Auction purchaser would
only get that right which was available to the judgment debtor. In
such circumstances, petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
nj.