IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29685 of 2010(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, MURALIKA, PERUMBAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN, SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN, SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED, SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, PERUMBAVUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. * ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED ADDL. R2: S. CHANDRAMOHAN, S/O.SANKARA REDDIYAR, KULAMAKKAL HOUSE, KAMALA COTTAGE, PERUMBAVUR, PIN-698 013. * IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ORDER DATED 04/10/2010 IN I.A.13569/2010. BY ADV. MR.A.S.P. KURUP, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29685 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner claims to be a bonafide purchaser of a property having an extent of 12 cents comprised in Re- Sy.Nos:33 & 68 in Block No:88 of Perumbavoor Village along with a residential building situated therein bearing Door No:4/149 of Perumbavoor Muncipality. 2. According to the petitioner he purchased the property by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. Subsequent to the purchase it was revealed that there exists a mortgage with respect to the property in favour of the respondent Bank and that the Bank has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), consequent to default committed in payment of the loan amounts by the borrower, who is the previous owner of the property. Challenging the above said proceedings the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion and in Ext.P2 judgment this court permitted the petitioner to pay off the entire liability due to the respondent Bank in a phased manner. The petitioner was directed to make payment of a sum of Rs.7 lakhs within one week from the W.P.(C).29685/10- -2- date of the judgment, and the balance amount within a period of another one month. It is stated that in compliance with the directions contained in the judgment the petitioner had remitted a sum of Rs.7 lakhs by virtue of Ext.P3 series receipts and a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as per Ext.P4 series. It is further stated that a meagre amount is still outstanding to the respondent Bank and the petitioner is ready to clear the entire payment. But grievance of the petitioner is that eventhough the Bank was approached for effecting such payment and for getting back title deeds of the property which is pledged, the respondent is not prepared to return the title deeds since no specific direction was issued by this court in that regard, in Ext.P2 judgment. 3. It is noticed that the borrower was a party in Ext.P2 judgment. It is evident that the borrower has executed sale deed as per Ext.P1 conveying the property in favour of the petitioner. However, as directed by this court, the borrower has impleaded the petitioner as additional 2nd respondent in this writ petition. But the notice sent from this court to the 2nd respondent was returned unserved with postal endorsement as “left”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent is absconding and his whereabouts are not known. 4. Having considered the factual situation as above, it is noticed that the title with respect to the property now stands W.P.(C).29685/10- -3- transferred to the name of the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P1. The 2nd respondent, who is the borrower, has not raised any dispute at any point of time either before this court or before the respondent Bank in returning the title deeds to the petitioner. Under such circumstances I am of the view that on payment of the entire amount due to the 1st respondent the petitioner is entitled to get back the title deeds relating to the property in question. 5. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Bank to release the title deeds and other documents pertaining to the property mortgaged by the 2nd respondent, subject to the condition of the petitioner remitting the entire balance outstanding in the loan account. The needful shall be done without any delay on payment of the entire outstanding dues. 6. However, it is made clear that the return of the title deed and other documents will not cause any prejudice to rights if any available to the 2nd respondent, to challenge title of the petitioner on the property in question, if permissible under law. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb