IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 7632 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.T.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE THANKAPPAN, THEKKEKATTU HOUSE, PROPRIETOR, SIVA TEXTILES T.P.PURAM, VAZHOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, PALLICKATHODE BRANCH, PALLICKATHODE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (OPA), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SC SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7632 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB-JUDGE, KOTTAYAM ISSUED A SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 31.3.2004 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.5.2008 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE WIFE OF PETITIONER DATED 26.8.2008 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.7.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF MOTHER-IN-LAW OF THE PETITIONER (True Copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).7632/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner had availed of a loan of Rs.2,28,000/- from the first respondent. The property, having an extent of 2.44 acres owned by the petitioner's mother in law, was mortgaged as security. Default was committed and that led to filing of O.S.283/90 before the Sub Court, Kottayam. The Suit was decreed ex-parte and the property was put in sale for the recovery of the amount. Finally, the Bank itself purchased the property and Ext.P1 is the sale certificate. It is stated that the sale was subsequently conferred and the sale deed was also executed. Petitioner submits that irrespective of all the above, the property still continues in the possession of the defaulters and he seeks a direction to re- convey the property on the petitioner remitting an amount due to the Bank in addition to the interest. 2.Having regard to all that has transpired, unless the Bank is willing, this Court will not be justified in compelling the Bank to accept the request made by the petitioner. However, the fact W.P.(C).7632/2011 2 remains that the Bank has already invested its money which the petitioner is also willing to compensate. In such circumstances, I see no reason why the Bank shall not consider the request of the petitioner. 3.In view of the above, I direct that the second respondent will deal with Ext.P6 representation made by the petitioner. This the second respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs