IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4368 of 2008(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T. NARAYANANKUTTY GUPTAN, S/O. LATE KUNHUNNI GUPTAN, AGED 53 YEARS, THATTARLI HOUSE, THACHANPARA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SREEHARINIVAS, SREEDURGA NAGAR, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE CANARA BANK, MANNARKKAD, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. DAVID GEORGE, S/O.LATE KODIYAD GEORGE, THACHANPARA AMSOM, DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GEORGE VADAKKEL R2 BY ADV.SRI.GOPINATHA MENON -STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4368 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner purchased an extent of 6½ cents of land from the 3rd respondent under Exts.P1 and P2. Apparently, 30 cents of land, including the extent of land purchased under Exts.P1 and P2, had been mortgaged by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent bank. The petitioner submits that his vendor did not disclose the mortgage. 2. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Bank Mr.Gopinatha Menon, on instructions, submits that an amount of Rs.13,74,484/- is currently due from the 3rd respondent to the bank and steps are afoot to recover the said amount by resorting to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the revenue sale is scheduled to take place on 14.02.2008. Petitioner had approached the revenue authorities by Ext.P3 for release of the extent of land covered by Exts.P1 and P2. But, this was declined by W.P.(C).No.4368 of 2008 2 the Tahsildar by Ext.P4 order on the premise that the sale in favour of the petitioner was subsequent to the mortgage and therefore, it may not be possible to release a portion of the mortgaged property in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Jacob Sebastian submits that he is even prepared to pay the entire amount due from the 3rd respondent to save the property. 4. Mr.Gopinatha Menon, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-bank submits that the petitioner is a subsequent vendor and it may not be possible for the bank to recognise the petitioner, holder of the equity of redemption merely by reason of Exts.P1 and P2. In my view, it is only appropriate that the petitioner also participates in the revenue auction, which is proposed to be held on 14.02.2008, as evidenced by Ext.P5. 5. The petitioner is at liberty to do so. If there are other formalities to be complied with, the first respondent may permit the petitioner to do so, notwithstanding the delay. W.P.(C).No.4368 of 2008 3 Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge