IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15236 of 2007 Between: 1 Anisetti Subrahmanyam S/o. Anisetty Venkata Rao, Hindu R/o. Yadavolu, Devarapalli Manal, W.G. District. 2 Anisetti Nagadurga Prasad S/o. Anisetty Venkata Rao, Hindu R/o. Yadavolu, Devarapalli Manal, W.G. District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Raghunayaka Cooperative Rural Bank Chinnayagudem, Deverapalli Mandal, W.G. District, Rep. by its Secretary. 2 The Cooperative Senior Inspector/Sale Officer The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Eluru, W.G. District. 3 Kola Ganga Ratnam W/o. Krishna Murthy R/o. Yadavolu village and Mandal, W.G. District R3 is impleaded as per court order dt. 3-8-2007 in WPMP 20182 of 2007 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the auction notice issued by the 2nd Respondent for conducting public auction to sell away an extent of Ac 4.94 cents out of Ac 10.94 cents in Sy.No. 270 of Yadavolu Village, and Mandal, W.G. District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently to set aside the same in so far as the said land is concerned and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners have purchased an extent of Acs.10.94 cents in survey No.270 of Yadavolu Village and Mandal, West Godavari District, from the third respondent and her sons, through sale deeds dated 19.10.2000 and 03.12.2004. It is stated that when the third respondent informed the petitioners that part of the property is under mortgage to the ﬁrst respondent, suﬃcient amount was paid to get the mortgage redeemed, and according to their information, there was no subsisting mortgage, as on the date of the sale deeds. The grievance of the petitioners is that the ﬁrst respondent had initiated steps against an extent of Acs.4.94 cents of land in survey No.270 by taking the plea that the third respondent has mortgaged the same. The petitioners contend that they were kept in dark of several facts by the third respondent and being purchasers for valuable consideration, their rights cannot be defeated. The ﬁrst respondent ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit stating that there exists a valid mortgage in respect of Acs.4.94 cents held by the third respondent and that they have proceeded, to recover the amount due. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. The steps taken by the ﬁrst respondent against an extent of Acs.4.94 cents of land, are on the strength of the mortgage. Even assuming that the petitioners have purchased their land together with any other extent, the right of the ﬁrst respondent does not get diluted. At the most, they can either redeem the mortgage by paying the amount or insist on marshalling under Section 56 of the Transfer of Property Act, in case the third respondent created mortgage, as regards any other property also. While ordering notice before admission, this Court granted stay, on condition that the petitioners deposit one third of the amount due. It is stated across the bar that the petitioners have deposited with the District Cooperative Central Bank, under a wrong impression. If that be so, they can take back the amount and deposit with the ﬁrst respondent. As of now, this Court cannot ﬁnd fault with the steps taken by the ﬁrst respondent vis-à-vis the mortgaged property. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that it shall be open to the petitioners to redeem the mortgage against an extent of Acs.4.94 cents of land in survey No.270 with the ﬁrst respondent and thereafter, to recover the amount from their vendor in accordance with law. It is made clear that in case the petitioners have deposited any amount to the District Cooperative Central Bank under a mistaken impression while complying with the direction issued by this Court, it shall be open to them to get the amount back. To enable the petitioners to redeem the mortgaged property, it is directed that the first respondent shall not proceed with the matter for a period of three months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.03.11.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ