IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 32459 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHANIJA BEEVI,S/O.THAJUDHEEN,THAJ MANZIL, KURIYATHI,PANACODU PO,NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SULFICKER,S/O.MOHAMMED SAIJ,LAILA MANZIL, KURIYATHI,PANACODU (PO), TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT -23. 2. THE MANAGER,KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, BRANCH NEDUMANGAD,NEDUMANGAD PO,TRIVANDRUM-23. 3. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,SANTHI NAGAR, TRIAVNDRUM-01, TRIVANDRUM RMS PO. BY SRI.A.JAYASANKAR - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.32459 of 2010-F ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioner had purchased 10 cents of land along with a residential building situated therein, comprised in survey No.256/2 and 256/14 of Uzhamalakkal Village, from one Sri.Sabeer, by virtue of Ext.P1 documents. The property in question was subsequently sold by the petitioner to one Sri.Siva Narayanan, S/o.Subha Rao by virtue of Ext.P2 sale deed. It is now revealed that the above said Sri.Sabeer in turn had purchased the property from the 1st respondent, who had derived title by virtue of a gift deed executed by his father Sri.Mohammed Sali, who is no more. The above said Sri.Mohammed Sali had created a mortgage on the property in favour of the 3rd respondent for securing a housing loan availed, and the title deed through which Sri.Mohammed Sali had obtained title over the property was in fact deposited with the 3rd respondent. Consequent to default committed in repayment of the loan, recovery steps were W.P(C) No.32459 of 2010-F 2 initiated at the behest of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, and the property in question was proceeded against. When such proceedings were noticed the petitioner approached respondents 2 and 3 expressing willingness to pay off the arrears due under the loan transaction, subject to availing benefits under the 'One Time Settlement Scheme' formulated by the State Government with respect to settlement of loans availed from the 3rd respondent. But respondents 2 and 3 were not prepared to accept such offer and to return the title deeds. Hence this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. 2. Inspite of service of notice from this Court, the 1st respondent has not entered appearance nor contested the matter. From Exts.P1 and P2 documents it is evident that the 1st respondent had already transferred his title and rights and that he has no title or interest on the property in question. Since the petitioner had expressed willingness to pay off the liability due to respondents 2 and 3, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if the petitioner is permitted to clear the liability, by availing facilitates under W.P(C) No.32459 of 2010-F 3 the 'One Time Settlement Scheme', on behalf of the defaulter. Hence respondents 2 and 3 are directed to permit the petitioner to pay off the liability on behalf of the defaulter, after availing benefits under the 'One Time Settlement Scheme'. 3. Since it is evident that the defaulter is no more and that there occurred a series of subsequent transactions with respect to the property, I am of the view that on closing of the housing loan account, the title deeds in deposit can be released to the present owner of the property on production of proof regarding title and possession, before the appropriate authority among respondents 2 and 3. It is pertinent to note that the 1st respondent, to whom the petitioner had transferred the property is not coming forward with any claim with respect to the release of the title deed or raising any dispute regarding the title of the subsequent transferees. Under such circumstances, it is made clear that the respondents 2 and 3 will be fully discharged from any liability arising out of release of the title deeds to the present owner as directed W.P(C) No.32459 of 2010-F 4 above. 4. However, it is made clear that if there is any dispute regarding title or possession existing between the legal heir of the defaulter or between any of the subsequent transferees, they will be at liberty to sort out such disputes through appropriate legal proceedings available under the common law. It is made clear that the respondents 2 and 3 may not be liable for any such dispute, on the basis of release of the title deeds to the present owner, in view of the directions contained above. 5. It is also made clear that the above directions or remittances if any made by the petitioner, or the return of the title deed will not in any manner affect rights of the petitioner to realise the amounts which will be paid to respondents 2 and 3 from those who are responsible. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab //True Copy//