IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32905 of 2010(K) ------------------------ PETITIONER : -------------------- JAYAKRISHNAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 29 YEARS, THEKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, ELAMADU P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691533 BY ADV. SRI. V. JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ICICI BANK LTD, VAIDYA COMMERCIAL ARCADE, ASRAMOM ROAD, KOLLAM-691001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. 2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, ICICI BANK LTD, TC 25/2491, M.G.ROAD, PULIMOOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.KKM.SHERIF, SC SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR) SMT.K.LEEPA PIOUS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32905 of 2010 K ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that since 2006 he is employed in the United Arab Emirates. According to him, he owns property covered by Exts.P2 and P5. It is stated that, while so, on 22-10-2010, two persons claiming themselves to be the officers of the first respondent Bank, came to his house and claimed that the properties have been mortgaged in favour of the Bank. It is stated that the petitioner did not create any mortgage or other charge in favour of the respondent Bank or anybody else and, therefore, the claim raised by the Bank is totally illegal. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed, seeking a declaration that the attachment on the property allegedly effected by the first respondent is illegal. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. Apart from disputing the maintainability of the writ petition, it is stated in the counter affidavit that, on the W.P.(C) No.32905/2010 : 2 : basis of Ext.R1(a) Will executed by the mother of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner's sister bequeathing the property, the petitioner's sister and her husband made an application to the Bank and availed of the loans mortgaging the property. Referring to Ext.R1(b), the Bank also submit that the petitioner was well aware of Ext.R1(a) and that it was acting upon Ext.R1(b) also that the property covered by Ext.R1(a) was mortgaged. It is stated that the loanees committed default and, therefore, the Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation Act. According to the Bank, the sister of the petitioner and her husband have already filed S.A.No.134/2010 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and that since they did not comply the interim order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the property has been sold for a total sale consideration of ` 55,10,000/- on 01-10-2010. 3. Although it is the case of the petitioner that the property exclusively belongs to him, it can be seen that the petitioner's sister and her husband mortgaged it to the Bank W.P.(C) No.32905/2010 : 3 : and availed of loans from the Bank claiming themselves to be its owners. 4. Thus, essentially what is to be adjudicated in this writ petition is the genuineness of the documents of title on the strength of which the property was mortgaged, which is disputed by the petitioner. To resolve such contentions, necessarily, the factual questions will have to be adjudicated and evidence adduced by the parties will have to be appreciated. Unless such an exercise is completed, the petitioner cannot get any relief in this writ petition. Since the adjudication of such a dispute is not permissible in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. Therefore, leaving open the contentions of the petitioner on the validity of the documents relied on by the Bank, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge