IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6101 of 2009(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RASSIYA BEEVI, W/O.MOHAMMED ABDUL KHADER AGED 68 YEARS, KIZHAKKEVILA, VENKULAM, EDAVA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 311. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,PUTHECHANTHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -1 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER GENERAL MANAGER. 2. KASSIM SHAFFI, S/O.OSNARUKUNJU CHEKKALAVILAKATHU VEEDU, KAPPIL DESOM EDAVA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.6101 of 2009-G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner claims that she purchased an item of property in court auction and that an item of property, which has been mortgaged to the first respondent by the second respondent, is apparently shown to overlap, going by descriptions. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to challenge the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and also seeks a direction to the bank to consider Ext.P3 representation regarding the boundaries. While it may be open to the firs respondent to take into consideration any of the contents of Ext.P3, I am clear in my mind that the bank cannot be the adjudicator of any right to property, including the fixation of boundaries. The petitioner has alternate efficacious remedies for redressal of her WP(C)6101/2009 -: 2 :- grievances in different fora in accordance with law and it is not for this Court to decide on such an issue on a disputed title or disputed boundary which calls for adjudication on facts and evidence and disputes relating to the lie of the property. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to alternate remedies and also without prejudice to the petitioner bringing Ext.P3 notice to the first respondent. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/270209