IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 35680 of 2010(H) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PENNUKUNJU, AGED 77 YEARS, W/O. LATE DIVAKARAN PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, MITHRAKKARI, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SREE RAJA RAJESWARI BUILDI- NGS,CHURCH ROAD, MULLACKAL ALAPPUZHA-679533. 2. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., MUTTAR BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. PIN-688001. 3. SURENDRAN, S/O. LATE DIVAKARAN, PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, MITHRAKKARI, MUTTAR VILLAGE, KUTTANADU TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-679533. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT.P.V.PARVATHI, SMT.REENA THOMAS, SRI.L.RAM MOHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss 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