IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28315 of 2011(L) ------------------------------- CMP.941/2011 of C.J.M.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SMT.JAYA N.MENON @ JAYANTHI, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.PADMANABHA SWAMI, NADUVATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, "VISHNUKRIPA", OPPOSITE DR.RANI MENON'S EYE CARE CLINIC, AYYANTHOLE, CHUNGAM, THRISSUR-4. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, TRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, TRIPUNITHURA.P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 301. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, NMGB TOWERS, PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR-670 004. 3. N.BHAGYALEKSHMY, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE DAMODARAN PILLAI, "CHAITHANYA HOUSE, CHENNATTU, ANACHAL ROAD, VIKAS NAGAR, THAMARAKULANGARA, TRIPUNITHURA.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.28315/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1:-TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF RATION CARD ISSUED ON 20.1.2010. EXT.P2:-TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 2.7.2011 FOR THE PERIOD 2011-2012. EXT.P3:-TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION C.M.P.NO.941/2011 FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:-TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.3.2011 ISSUED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:-TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.3.2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C)NO.7493/2011. EXT.P6:-TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.8.2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A.NO.12216/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.28315 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) initiated by the respondents 1 & 2 against the property in which the petitioner is residing. According to the petitioner, the said property belongs to the legal heirs of the petitioner's father including the petitioner and her sister Smt. Sreedevi. But Smt.Sreedevi by herself sold the property to the 3rd respondent who mortgaged the same to the 1st respondent for availing of loan. According to the petitioner, her sister could not have by herself mortgaged the property. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Exhibits-P3 and P4 and to quash the same; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to pay off the entire liability in installments” W.P.(C)No.28315 of 2011 -2- 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 also. 3. Admittedly, the property was in the name of Smt. Sreedevi. She sold it to the 3rd respondent. That being so, I do not think that the petitioner can take this contention that the mortgage is not valid. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner seeks time to pay the amount. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The respondents 1 & 2 shall permit the petitioner to pay the amounts in the following installments: The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) before 31.12.2011. The balance amounts shall be paid on or before 31.03.2012. If the petitioner pays the installments as directed above without default, further proceedings under the Act shall be kept in abeyance. However if the petitioner commits W.P.(C)No.28315 of 2011 -3- default in payment of either Rs.3 lakhs or the balance amounts on due dates, it would be open to the respondents 1 & 2 to continue proceedings as now initiated without having to issue any fresh notice or proceedings in that regard. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/