IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28099 of 2009(F)
1. V.V.BABY,S/O. VARKEY,AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (G) OFFICE OF THE
... Respondent
2. THE TELLICHERRY PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL AND
For Petitioner :SRI.CIBI THOMAS
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :15/10/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 28099 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 15th October, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner availed of a loan of Rs. 1 lakh from the 2nd
respondent-bank in 1998. He also availed of another loan for
Rs. 20,000/- for agricultural purposes. The petitioner defaulted
repayment of the loan amounts. The bank brought the properties
belonging to the petitioner to sale, which ultimately culminated in the
bank itself buying the property on 22-6-2001. The petitioner filed a
writ petition. By Ext. P1 judgment, this Court directed the 1st
respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s representation . Pursuant to
Ext. P1, the 1st respondent heard the petitioner and the recovery
officer of the bank. On the date of hearing, the 1st respondent
directed the parties to think it over and to submit the exact amount
that can be paid. Thereafter, although the 1st respondent issued Ext.
P2 notice directing the petitioner to appear before him on 5.9.2009 at
3.00 p.m., the 1st respondent passed Ext. P3 order dated 31-8-2009
directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,10,000/-, whereas the petitioner
offered to make payment of only Rs. 3 lakhs. It is under the above
circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:
“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to
Ext. P3 and quash the original of the same.
(b) writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to
make the payments in 12 monthly equal instalments.
(c) writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or
direction, directing the 2nd respondent to give concessions to the
petitioner in repaying the loan amount.”
2. Counsel for the bank stoutly opposes the prayers. According
W.P.C. No. 28099/2009 -: 2 :-
to him, the sale itself had taken place more than 7 years ago and
therefore the petitioner cannot now come and say that he will pay
only Rs. 3 lakhs for re-conveyance of the property. He would further
submit that the bank had given further reduction in the amounts
payable by the petitioner to the tune of almost Rs. 30,000/- and it is
after deducting that amount, Rs. 4,10,000/- was arrived at. However,
counsel for the bank would submit that the bank is still willing to
re-convey the property provided the petitioner pays the above
amount.
3. In view of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks facility to pay that amount in instalments, which is
also opposed by the learned counsel for the bank.
4. After hearing both sides, I am of opinion that the bank was
very lenient to the petitioner. The petitioner is not in a position to
bargain on the amount payable. The entire recovery proceedings are
over and if the petitioner wants re-conveyance of the property, he has
to pay the amounts as directed by the bank. In the above
circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
The petitioner shall pay Rs. 4,10,000/- with further interest
thereon at the rate agreed upon in the original loan agreement, from
the date of Ext. P3, with conveyance charges, within two months. On
such payment, the bank shall re-convey the property to the petitioner.
If the petitioner does not pay the amount within two months, the bank
would not be liable to re-convey the property to the petitioner.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.