IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 8623 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PADMANABHAN,PAROLA HOUSE, POST VAKKAD, VIA.PARAVANNA, TIRUR. 2. SAKUNTHALA -DO- -DO- 3. HARIDASAN,-DO- -DO- 4. PUSHPARAJAN -DO- -DO- 5. ANIL, -DO- -DO- 6. RAJANI -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TIRUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F-1818,PARIYAPURA BRANCH, TIRUR REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)TIRUR. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.8623 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioners submit that, their mother late Parola Kallyani, who died due to cancer on 16.11.2006, had mortgaged 18.5 cents of land and a hut for availing of a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the respondent Bank. Default was committed, proceedings were initiated and finally in the auction held, the Bank itself purchased the property for Rs.1,24,900/-. Subsequent to the death of the petitioners' mother, petitioners submitted Exts.P3 and P4 requesting the Bank to reconvey the property. Orders were not passed and therefore this writ petition is filed. 2. The stand taken by the respondents is rather technical in nature. According to them, in view of the default committed, they had to bring the property for sale, to realize the amount. It is stated that, the sale was held on WP(c).No8623/09 2 11.7.2005 and was confirmed on 11.11.2007. It is stated that therefore the respondent is not bound to reconvey the property. 3. I heard the counsel appearing for both sides. True, petitioner's mother had committed default and the bank cannot be faulted for the steps it has taken including the purchase of the property in its favour. However, having regard to the fact that, the liability was incurred by the petitioners' mother who died of cancer and that the petitioners are willing to discharge the entire liability including the other charges involved, I am inclined to think that the Bank should generally reconvey the property to the petitioners. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the Bank to reconvey the property to the petitioners, on the petitioners remitting the full amount due, together with interest till date of payment, the reconveyance charges and other incidental expenses, if any. It will be open to the Bank to WP(c).No8623/09 3 call upon the petitioners to remit the amount due within 2 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment and the petitioners shall remit the amount within two weeks therefrom and within 2 weeks thereafter, the property should be reconveyed. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No8623/09 4