IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15493 of 2009(F) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MUHAMMED BASHEER,S/O.MUTHUPPA, NAMBIATH HOUSE,ELAMBULASSERY AMSOM,OTTAPALAM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HOLDER,P.M.NOUSHAD,S/O.ABDUL KHADER, PARAKKATHODI HOUSE,KARAKURSSI AMSOM, VAZHEMBRAM DESOM,MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. MANIKANDAN, S/O.CHAMI, PUTHUVAYIL HOUSE, POMBRA P.O., ELAMBULASSERY AMSOM. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND CHIEF REVENUE OFFIER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, (REVENUE OFFICER), KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, PALAKKAD DIVISION. 4. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, KADAMBAZHIPURAM. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15493 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The case of the petitioner is that, he is a bona fide purchaser of the property from the first respondent, who had actually created a mortgage by depositing the title deeds with the 4th respondent, in furtherance of a loan availed by him from the 4th respondent. The property was purchased by the petitioner vide Ext.P1 sale deed on 21.01.2005 it is stated that Ext.P2 encumbrance certificate issued from the concerned SRO does not reflect any encumbrance stated as created by the first respondent in favour of the 4th respondent. Case of the petitioner is that, the 4th respondent has taken coercive steps as borne by Ext.P3 and Ext.P4, invoking the relevant provisions under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, for realization of the amount admittedly due from the first respondent and that property purchased by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 is not liable to be attached or sold in furtherance to the above proceedings, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent submits that, the remedy of the petitioner, if any, can only be against the first respondent and the rights and interests of the 4th respondent having been well secured by virtue of the equitable mortgage created WP (C) No. 15493 of 2009 : 2 : over the property, that too on the basis of a registered mortgage, the 4th respondent is at liberty to proceed against the property and that the idea and understanding of the petitioner to the contrary is quite wrong and misconceived. 3. This Court, does not find any ground to interfere on merits. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner might be given some breathing time to wipe off the entire liability so as to save the property. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is directed to remit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs on or before the 30th of this month. The balance amount shall be remitted by way of 8 equal monthly installments commencing from 20th of July onwards. Till such time the revenue recovery proceedings being pursued on the basis of Exts.P3 and P4 shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that, if the petitioner commits any default in clearing the liability as aforesaid, the concerned respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amounts in lump sum. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd