IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28661 of 2008(K) ------------------------------------- OA.449/2003 of DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: ------------------- P.T. RAJU, AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF THOMAS, PULIMOOTTIL, KANJIRAMATTOM, ERNAKLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SHRIHARI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CANARA BANK, OVERSEAS BRANCH, KARUNA BUILDINGS, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI 682 035, KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CIEF MANAGER. 2. M/S GREENSEA MARINE, A.P. VI/412 AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA 688 534. 3. S. KUNJUMOHAMMAD, S/O V.A. SAINUDHEEN, RIYAS MANZIL, THALAKKOTTUMMOLA, THENGOD POST, KAKKANAD 682 031. 4. P.A. MOHAMMED NAZAR, S/O ABDUL KHADER, CHETTIKAD HOUSE, PERUNNA WEST P.O., VIA CHENGANACHERRY. 5. MANOJ P. JOHN, S/O LATE P.V. JOHN, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. ELDHO, S/O THOMAS PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 28661 OF 2008 (K) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent, notice to respondents 2 to 6 is dispensed with, preserving their right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. The petitioner was the additional 6th defendant in Exhibit P1 proceedings under the RDB Act. Though he was impleaded as subsequent purchaser of a portion of the 'B' schedule mortgaged property and though he entered appearance and obtained adjournment for filing written statement, he did not file any written statement as ordered. 3. The petitioner now contends that he is an assignee of a portion of the mortgaged property, which, according to him, did not belong to the mortgagor, who did not have any sustainable interest in that item to create the mortgage in favour of the W.P.(C) No.28661/2008 - 2 - bank. A claim to independent title over an item of property, involved in execution proceedings can be raised before the executing authority. But in the case in hand, the petitioner himself was the additional sixth defendant in the O.A. before the DRT and had obtained Ext.P1 order adverse to him, way back on 24-6-2005. That order includes the order for sale of the mortgaged property. That has become final, not having been appealed against. 4. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any shred of right in the petitioner to further raise any objection to the sale of the property claimed by him. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/29/9 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.