IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3240 of 2009(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS ABRAHAM, KOCHUPURACKAL, PATHAPUZHA P.O., POONJAR, THEKKEKARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANU TOM SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE MEENACHIL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4266, POONJAR, THEKKEKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. R1 BY GP SRI K C SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL FOR R2 SRI.BINU PAUL FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 3240 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to consider Ext.P3 and also to initiate action against the second respondent. 2. The second respondent advanced certain amounts to a party. That loan transaction led to an arbitration award in favour of the second respondent. In execution, the property was purchased by the second respondent. Later, the second respondent conducted an auction to sell off that property. The petitioner purchased it in auction. The plea of the petitioner relates to the non-execution of sale deed for the transfer of the property in question. While a sale deed could be executed on the basis of the auction sale, there appears to be considerable confusion touching certain aspects of the identity of the property, in as much as the original debtor and his brother appear to have entered into different transactions, which are now enumerated by the second respondent in its counter affidavit. The dispute with regard to title to the property, which was the subject matter of WP(C) 3240/2009 2 an auction sale in execution, is not a matter to be decided in writ jurisdiction. Without resolving that dispute, I do not deem it appropriate for the statutory authorities to merely keep on compelling the second respondent to transfer the property. All that could be done is for the second respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and then for the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law, if he is interested in getting the property free of the muddle noted in the counter affidavit. However, it would always be open to the petitioner to insist on cancelling the same and to be paid the amounts paid by him with adequate interest. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find it appropriate or necessary for this court to issue any direction as called for. Writ petition is hence dismissed, without prejudice to what is stated above. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/6/3