IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 35988 of 2007(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.A.AUGUSTINE, S/O ANTONY, KAINIKATTU HOUSE, POONITHURA VILLAGE, VYTTILA. BY ADV. SMT.K.TRESA RANI GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. P.K.SUKUMARAN, S/O KUMARAN, PUZHAKKARAYIDATH HOUSE, MUTTINAKAM, VARAPPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, VYPPIN RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, NO.E-27, MALIPPURAM, KOCHI-682 511. R1 BY ADVS. MR.P.SREEKUMAR, MR.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR), R2 BY ADV.MR.K.A.JALEEL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.35988/2007-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.S. 128/94. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S. 128/94. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CHALAN FOR DEPOSIT OF RS.1,59,000/- DTD. 29/09/95. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACTUAL AMOUNT DUE TO SOCIETY AS ON 19/03/1997 FURNISHED BY R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE R.2. FOR RS.1,59,000/- DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR RS.42323/- ISSUED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).35988/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who purchased a property from the first respondent, is aggrieved that the second respondent has been refusing to issue a discharge certificate in relation to the property. An encumbrance was created over the property by the first respondent when he was the owner of the same, when it had been mortgaged in favour of the second respondent. It is now affirmed by the second respondent that the entire amounts due it has been paid by the first respondent and that the second respondent is willing to execute a release deed. All that the second respondent requires is that the expenses incurred for the execution of the release deed shall be borne by the petitioner. It is obvious that the petitioner will be liable to bear the expenses. 2. Writ petition is therefore, disposed of directing the second respondent to execute a release deed in W.P.(C).35988/2007 2 favour of the petitioner, provided the petitioner is willing to bear the expenses for the same. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs