IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35760 of 2009(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JAMEELA, W/O. HYDROSE KOYA THANGA, THENATHUPARAMBIL, MARIYAKKADU DESOM, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.MR.P.VINODKUMAR MR.T.C.SANTHILAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. HYDROSE KOYA THANGAL, MOOTTIKKAL HOUSE, MANNUTHY MAKYEN ROAD, OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CITY UNION BANK LTD., PUTHEN BUILDING, COMPLEX, ROUND WEST, THRISSUR. 3. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, CITY UNION BANK LTD., CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL OFFICE, 149/TSC (BIG) STREET, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. MR.A.KUMAR, CITY UNION BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 35760 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is the second wife of the 1st respondent. Property covered under Exts.P1 & P2 documents stands in the name of the 1st respondent, which he had mortgaged in favour of the respondents 2 & 3, for securing a loan. According to the petitioner, eventhoguh the property stands registered in the name of the 1st respondent, the property belongs to her ancestors and she is the real owner of the property. The marital relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent got strained and consequently legal proceedings were initiated before the Family Court as well as before the Magistrate Court, seeking maintenance and other reliefs under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Interim orders of attachments against the said property as evidenced from Exts.P3 & P4 were issued by the Family Court as well as by W.P.(C)No. 35760 of 2009 -2- the Magistrate Court, respectively. But, at the instance of the respondents 2 & 3, proceedings is now being persued against the property in execution of a recovery certificate issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioner that a suit filed as O.S. No.1108/2007 before the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda seeking declaration with respect to title and consequent injunction is pending disposal. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the suit as well as the interim orders of attachment, the recovery officer attached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal has proclaimed sale of the property, as evidenced from Ext.P7 notice. 2. The respondents 2 & 3 cannot be considered as a party having any interest in the dispute between the petitioner and her husband, related to the property and other matters connected with their marital relationship. As far as the Bank is concerned, the proceedings are now being persued on the basis of the equitable mortgage created on the property in question. If there exist any W.P.(C)No. 35760 of 2009 -3- dispute with respect to title of the property under mortgage, the petitioner can agitate such dispute before the appropriate forum. This court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not enter upon any findings on that aspect, which requires adjudication based on evidence. It is also made clear that the petitioner can raise contentions before the Recovery Officer or before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, through appropriate proceedings. 3. Under the above circumstances the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to rights of the petitioner if any available under law to approach the appropriate forums raising disputes and claims in proceedings being persued at the instance of respondents 2 & 3 against the property in question. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/