IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 247 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.35854/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION DISTRICT OFFICE, KATTAPPANA. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ, SC, KFC SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS AND 2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- 1. SMT. KUNJUPARU, W/O.THANKAPPAN AGED 77 YEARS, NIRAPPEL HOUSE KONNATHADI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SRI. K.JANABHAKTHAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN AGED 50 YEARS, NIRAPPEL HOUSE, 1000 ACRE VIA. ADIMALI, VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.CHANDY JOSEPH (B/O) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------------------- R.P.NO.247 OF 2008 IN WP(c).No.35854/07 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009. O R D E R Kerala State Financial Corporation is the review petitioner. For the purpose of disposal of this review petition, certain essential facts are to be noted. 2. Writ petitioner is the mother of the defaulter. Her son had availed of a loan from the KFC and her husband was the co-obligant and it was his property that was mortgaged as security. Son had committed default. The property was taken over and was auctioned. The highest offer received was Rs.6.4 lakhs and at that stage the KFC issued Ext.P3 to the defaulter and the co-obligant, giving them an opportunity to pay the amount equivalent to the highest offer received and to get possession of the property. R.P.No.247/08 2 3. According to the KFC, that opportunity was not utilized by the defaulter and it was at that stage the writ petitioner mother offered to discharge the liability. She filed the writ petition praying that she be given an opportunity to pay the amount in installments. After hearing the counsel for the review petitioner also, this court by judgment dated 4th December, 2007, allowed the writ petitioner to discharge he liability in installments. Admittedly, the amount was paid and that was accepted by the KFC. Thereupon the writ petitioner sought release of the properties and it was at that stage the review petition was filed. 4. The contention raised in the review petition is that as on 1.12.2007, the total liability that was due to the KFC was Rs. 56.94 lakhs and therefore the title deeds of the property cannot be released. Although payment has been made as directed in the judgment, it is stated that to realize the balance amount the review petitioner is entitled to proceed against the property again. R.P.No.247/08 3 5. In my view, this submission of the KFC cannot be accepted. As already noticed, the land was offered for sale in public auction. The highest offer received was 6.47 lakhs and it was paying that amount in full that the mother of the defaulter is now seeking release of the property. In Ext.P3 or in the review petition, nothing is indicated to the effect that, the property would not have been sold by the KFC accepting the highest offer of Rs.6.4 lakhs. Therefore, if the property has been sold in favour of the highest bidder, the property should certainly have been released to the petitioner and that too, free from all encumbrances. The defaulter or his relative who avails of the opportunity extended by the KFC to save the property by paying the amount equal to the highest offer received, is necessarily should step into the shoes of the highest bidder and should be entitled to all privileges and rights which the highest bidder is otherwise entitled. Any contrary view can only be disastrous, as in this case, the father and the son have already committed default and lost R.P.No.247/08 4 their property and the mother in spite of paying Rs.6.4 lakhs would not be getting the property. Such an interpretation cannot be accepted. Therefore, I am of the firm view that the review petition is only to be rejected and the KFC is bound to release the title deed of the property. Needless to say that the KFC will be free to proceed against the defaulters, excluding the property in respect of which the payment has been made pursuant to the judgment of this court. Review petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ R.P.No.247/08 5