IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35680 of 2010(H)
1. PENNUKUNJU, AGED 77 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK
... Respondent
2. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., MUTTAR BRANCH,
3. SURENDRAN, S/O. LATE DIVAKARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.PRAMOD
For Respondent :SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :23/12/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 35680 of 2010
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the mother of the 3rd respondent.
Petitioner is challenging the proceedings initiated by
respondents 1 and 2 against the 3rd respondent under the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI
Act). The 3rd respondent had defaulted repayment of a
loan availed from respondents 1 and 2, and as a
consequence the immovable property, which is the secured
asset, was proceeded against. Ext.P3 is the notice issued
by the first respondent under Section 13(2) of the Act.
2. According to the petitioner she has got life interest
in the residential building contained in the immovable
property which is now being proceeded against. It is stated
that the petitioner along with others have executed Ext. P1
partition deed settling the property in favour of the 3rd
WP(C) No. 35680 of 2010
2
respondent, with a reservation of the rights of the
petitioner to reside in the house till her life. Contention is
that, since the petitioner has not joined as a guarantor in
the loan transaction, her interest could not be affected by
virtue of the impugned proceedings.
3. It is noticed that the proceedings initiated is only at
the stage of notice issued under Section 13(2). It is always
left open to the respondent Bank to proceed with further
steps without prejudice to rights if any available to the
petitioner for continuing residence in the house in question.
Admittedly, the title of the property vests with the 3rd
respondent and the petitioner is claiming only a limited
right of residence. As long as no steps is initiated to evict
the petitioner from the residential building it could not be
said that the petitioner is in any way affected by the
proceedings impugned. Therefore I am not impressed with
the contentions that the proceedings now initiated is liable
WP(C) No. 35680 of 2010
3
to be interfered with at this stage. However, the petitioner
will be at liberty to raise appropriate challenge if any action
is initiated for dispossessing her from the residential house.
The writ petition is disposed with the above
observations.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM,
JUDGE
rkc