IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRP.No. 146 of 2009() --------------------- E.P.37/07 IN AEL.5196/2004 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): JUDGEMENT DEBTOR/DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANTO MANKOOTTAM, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, MANKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, MELAMPPARA KARA, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.C.D.JOSE, MR.P.S.SUNIL. RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MEENACHIL CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.K 197, PALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY N.J.LUKOSE, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NJALLAMPUZHA HOUSE, THALAPPALAM KARA, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.SUNIL CYRIAC,SC,MEENACHIL CO-OP.ARD THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON 01/06/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.146 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 1st June, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is judgment debtor in E.P.No.37/07 in AEL 5196/04 on the file of the Sub Court, Pala. The execution petition was filed by the respondent, a Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited for delivery of the immovable property purchased in the sale conducted by the Special Officer of that Bank in accordance with the Act and Rules . In the execution proceedings the judgment debtor raised objections that the civil court has no jurisdiction to execute the award and order delivery of possession, that over 10 cents of property covered by the sale there was no mortgage in favour of the Bank, and that the execution proceeded is barred by limitation. The learned Sub Judge under the impugned order challenged in the revision overruled the objections and ordered for delivery excluding the 10 cents, as identified by the Commissioner, which was not subject matter of the mortgage in favour of the decree holder Bank. Reiterating the objections raised before the execution court, the petitioner has filed this revision. Though notice on the revision was served on the respondent- CRP No.146/09 - 2 - Bank, it has not entered appearance. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The main thrust of attack pressed into service by the learned counsel to assail the order of the learned Sub Judge is that there is an implied bar ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 24 of the Kerala State Co-operative (Agricultural and Rural Development Bank) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'CARD Act') and as such the order passed by the learned Sub Judge was one without jurisdiction. Inviting my attention to Chapter V of the CARD Act, the learned counsel submitted that adequate procedures are enumerated under that Chapter empowering the Registrar to pass all and every order required for the execution of the award. Pointing out that Section 24 in the above Act empower the Registrar to order delivery of the property sold to the purchaser, the learned counsel contended the provisions under the above Chapter clearly demonstrate there is an implied bar ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court. The learned counsel also relied on Ernad Primary Co- operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 132) that awards or orders of Registrar in relation to Co-operative societies are different from those relating to Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Banks and the CRP No.146/09 - 3 - procedure for execution of awards and delivery pursuant to the sale in respect of agricultural development bank has to be strictly carried out in tune with the provisions of Chapter V of the CARD Act. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel. The provisions of Chapter V enabling the sale of property without intervention of the court empowering the Board or Committee of an Agricultural and Rural Development Bank or a Primary Bank or any person authorised by the Board of such committee as evident from Section 19 of the CARD Act is “in addition to any other remedy available” to the Primary Bank to bring to sale the property. What is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society and a Primary Bank are defined under Section 2 (g) and (h) of the CARD Act. A Primary Agricultural Credit Society is defined as a Co-operative Society formed with the principal object of raising funds for lending a primary or agricultural and allied purpose. Primary Bank means, a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act as a Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Limited and admitted as a member of the Agricultural Development Bank. It is inclusive of the definition under Section 2(h) further indicate a Co-operative Society registered or deemed to be registered under the said Act is a Primary CRP No.146/09 - 4 - Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited and admitted as a member of the Kerala Co-operative Central Land Mortgage Bank Limited which is known as Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited is also a Primary Bank. So much so, there cannot be any doubt that a Primary Bank like the respondent-Decree holder is a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. What is provided under Section 24 of the CARD Act, as already stated, is in addition to any other remedy available to the primary bank to bring the sale the property covered by the mortgage executing in his favour. Reliance placed by the counsel in Ernad Primary Co-operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2008(1) KLT 132) is misconceived as the question considered therein was the exemption covered by a notification and it has no application to the present case. Execution proceedings before the learned Sub Judge leading to the order impugned are proper, valid and correct and strictly in accordance with law. None of the provisions of CARD Act either specifically or impliedly oust the jurisdiction of the civil court with respect to sale of a property covered by an award passed in favour of a primary bank. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner CRP No.146/09 - 5 - with respect to the bar of limitation and that the sale certificate covers an excess area than the property that was mortgaged in favour of the primary bank are also found to be not worthy of any merit. The learned Sub Judge has rightly and correctly found Article 136 of the Limitation Act would apply and the execution moved for delivery of the property covered by the sale certificate was within time. So far as the 10 cents of property over which the petitioner/judgment debtor claimed independent title, contending it was not covered by the mortgage in favour of the Bank, the order passed by the learned Sub Judge shows that after identification of the property through a commission, delivery is ordered excluding the above ten cents. The learned counsel for the petitioner taking exception to the exclusion ordered in directing delivery of the property by the learned Sub Judge contended that a fresh sale certificate excluding that property was required to proceed further in the matter. I do not find any merit in the objections so canvassed. When delivery is sought on the basis of a sale certificate, the learned Sub Judge, on the materials, was satisfied that the mortgage executed in favour of the Bank is limited to a portion only and that alone was covered by the sale. Appropriate orders/directions CRP No.146/09 - 6 - restricting the delivery only in respect of mortgaged property can be made and that alone was done in this case by which the judgment- debtor petitioner is only benefitted. That cannot be taken advantage to impeach the correctness of the order of delivery passed by the learned Sub Judge. Revision is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE