IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27642 of 2008(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.SAROJAMMAL, W/O.LATE P.S.MONI ALIAS SUBRAMANYA PILLA, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHEMBAKA BHAVANAM, MULLACKEL, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. CORPORATION BANK, ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CORPORATION BANK, ALAPPUZHA. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 4. P.S.LALU ALIAS MANILAL, S/O.LATE P.S.MONI ALIAS SUBRAMANYA PILLA, RESIDING AT CHEMBAKA BHAVANAM, MULLACKEL, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R3 ADV. SRI. S.B. PREMACHANDRA PRABHU S.C, FOR R1 & R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.27642 of 2008-N = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The fourth respondent, the son of the petitioner availed a loan from the first respondent for the purpose of a commercial activity, namely, a jewellery. That loan was not repaid in time and the bank initiated action under the SARFAESI Act. The fourth respondent filed a writ petition before this Court and thereafter, he moved the DRT with a securitization application. After the disposal of the securitization application, his mother, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 suit holding out a life estate to the extent of right of residence and the right to collect rent, if any, from the property and with the plea that a dead which is shown to have been executed by her as a release of that right is a fraudulent transaction. The civil court did not grant any WP(C)27642/2008 -: 2 :- order of injunction, though sought for. That issue is stated to be pending in a C.M.Appeal before the District Court in which there is no interim order, as of now. 2.The fact that the property has been offered as secured interest to the bank is not in dispute. The quality of the interest so created is a matter for adjudication, if called for. The civil court having refused to grant a decree or interlocutory order against the bank from executing the proceedings, I do not find it reasonable for the writ court to interfere and stay the action initiated by the bank under the SARFAESI Act. Be that as it may, the apprehension of the petitioner that she is likely to be dispossessed even without a proper notice and without such notices as are envisaged by the SARFAESI Act, it is ordered that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed except in accordance with the due WP(C)27642/2008 -: 3 :- process of law in terms of the SARFAESI Act and Rules and if she has any grievance that she is not liable to be proceeded, such contention has to be considered and disposed of by such authority under the SARFAESI Act, who would decide on the question of actual physical dispossession. Subject to the above, this writ petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/170908