IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19369 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ----------------- XAVIER.C.A, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 50 YEARS, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, NEDUPUZHA P.O, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, SRO, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-03. 2. SUB-TREASURY OFFICER, SUB-TREASURY, AYYANTHOLE. BY GOVT. PLEADER I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C).No.19369 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T By Ext.P1 document, the petitioner's late mother purchased certain immovable properties from one priest Fr. George and his brother Sri. Francis. Out of the sale consideration an amount of Rs.738/- was reserved to be paid later for which a charge was created in the properties as a vendor lien, which was to be discharged on payment of the said amount to the said Fr. George, together with an amount of Re.1/- per month till the date of realisation. The said Fr. George died on 21.07.1971 and his brother is also stated to be no more. The petitioner's mother also died on 22.05.2001. The petitioner is not aware of the legal heirs of the vendors also. When the petitioner offerred the said property as security for loan amounts he was told to get the charge discharged. Therefore, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent with a request to accept the total amount due by way of discharge of that charge as a treasury deposit, which was refused to be considered. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this W.P(C).No.19369 of 2008 - 2 - Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to accept an amount of Rs.1314/- as Fixed Deposit in favour of 1st respondent to release the charge created over the ExtP-1 property. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issue an encumbrance certificate to petitioner w.r.t. the ExtP-1 and P-2 properties after releasing the charge created over ExtP-1 property and after making necessary entries in the relevant records of ExtP-1 property on acceptance of the deposit of the charge amount.” 3. The petitioner could not point out any provision of law which makes it obligatory on the part of the respondents to do as he requested to the respondents. That being so, I cannot direct the respondents to accept the amount and declare that the charge has been duly discharged especially since the respondents are not parties to the transaction. The petitioner's remedy lies in convincing the financier or the bank that the charge no more survives in view of the law of limitation, or filing a suit for appropriate reliefs. With the above observation the writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs