IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 25357 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RETNAMMA, KRISHNAVILASOM, THENGAMATHU MURI, PALLIKKAL, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, (REVENUE DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KONNI, OFFICE OF THE HOUSING BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR. 4. BALACHANDRAN NAIR, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, THENGAMUM, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) FOR R4 ADV. SRI. POOVAPPALLY M. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 25357/2007. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DT. 1-1-2000. EXT.P2 ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DT. 3-11-2006. EXT.P3 LAWYER'S NOTICE DT. 21-11-2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.R4(a) REPLY NOTICE DT. 7-12-2006. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 25357 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th May, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a purchaser of certain properties, which were mortgaged by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent-Kerala State Housing Board. Now, the 2nd respondent has initiated proceedings for sale of the properties for realisation of the loan amount as security for which the property in question had been mortgaged to the 2nd respondent by the 4th respondent. The petitioner is challenging those proceedings . The petitioner's contention is that the 4th respondent had not made the petitioner aware of the existence of the mortgage and, without discharging the mortgage, executed Ext. P1 sale deed, thus cheating the petitioner. Assuming the same to be true, that is no ground to challenge the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent in the matter in so far as the 2nd respondent holds a valid mortgage in respect of the property. The petitioner would contend that the 4th respondent has other properties against which the 2nd respondent can proceed and therefore the 2nd respondent may be directed to proceed against such other properties. I do not think the 2nd respondent can do that without the consent of the 4th respondent, since they can proceed against other properties of the 4th respondent only after proceeding against the mortgaged property, in law. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/