IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22816 of 2008(N) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 133/2003 IN EP.203/2005 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SUKUMARAN, AGED 59, S/O.MANAKUNNATH RAMANKUTTY, PANAMKULAM DESOM, OORAKAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE BHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD., ARATTUPUZHA BRANCH, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGR, ARATTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SANTHOSH, S/O.SUKUMARAN, PANAMKULAM DESOM, OORAKAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22816 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash Ext.P6 sale proclamation and for a direction to exclude Ext.P1 property from sale. First respondent is the decree holder and second respondent the judgment debtor. For realisation of the decree debt, the mortgaged property was sought to be sold in the execution proceedings. Under Ext.P6 sale proclamation, mortgaged property was proclaimed for sale. The case of the petitioner is that subsequent to the settlement deed executed in favour of the petitioner, second respondent-judgment debtor who is the son of the petitioner, along with the father of the petitioner who settled the property in favour of the petitioner, mortgaged the property in favour of the first respondent Bank, and, therefore, first respondent mortgagee cannot claim any right over the property obtained by the petitioner prior to the mortgage, and, therefore, his property is to be excluded. 2. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent, I do not find any reason either to W.P.(C) No.22816 of 2008 2 quash Ext.P6 sale proclamation or to issue a direction to exclude the property as claimed by the petitioner. What could be sold by the court is only the property mortgaged in favour of the first respondent Bank by the second respondent judgment debtor. Auction purchaser would only get that right which was available to the judgment debtor. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.