IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29649 of 2010 (E) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. SAINABA @ RADHA, RAJ VILLA, THAZHATHUVADAKKU MURI, PATTAZHI VILLAGE, PATTAZHI P.O., KOLLAM. 2. SWAMIYA RAJ, D/O.SAINABA, RAJ VILLA, THAZHATHUVADAKKU MURI, PATTAZHI VILLAGE, PATTAZHI P.O., KOLLAM. 3. SEEDHU RAJ, S/O.SAINABA, RAJ VILLA, THAZHATHUVADAKKU MURI, PATTAZHI VILLAGE, PATTAZHI P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PADMALAYAN.P.P. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PATHANAPURAM BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT 689 695. 2. RAJARAM, S/O.RAMASWAMY, AGED 57, RAJ VILLA, THAZHATHU VADAKKUMURI, PATTAZHI VILLAGE, PATTAZHI PANCHAYATH, PATTAZHI P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 522. R1 BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC, SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 29649 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ Petition is against proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). First petitioner is the wife of the 2nd respondent and petitioners 2 and 3 are their children. According to the petitioners, the second respondent is living separated from the first petitioner. The property now being proceeded against under the SARFAESI Act belong to petitioners 2 and 3, upon which they derived title by virtue of Ext.P1 Deed of settlement. It is contended that the petitioners 2 and 3 had never executed any document of guarantee or mortgage with respect to the property. But the property is now being proceeded against for realising amounts due under a loan availed by the second respondent from the 2 WP(C) No. 29649/2010 first respondent Bank, is the grievance expressed by the petitioners. 2. On receipt of Ext.P3 notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners submitted objections which was considered and a reply was given under Ext.P5. The first respondent Bank reiterated the stand that the petitioners have executed necessary documents creating mortgage with respect to the property and that the petitioners are also guarantors with respect to the loan transaction. 3. The dispute seems to be one pertains to denial of execution of the mortgage. For arriving at a proper decision on the disputed issue various factual aspects on the basis of evidence need be considered. Since the petitioner has got an effective statutory remedy against further steps if any initiated, as provided under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, I am of the opinion that interference in this Writ Petition is not at all proper. The disputed questions on 3 WP(C) No. 29649/2010 the facts could not be decided in this Writ Petition, which is filed under Article 226. 4. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed, without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy before the appropriate Forum. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc