Anil Kumar v. The Sub Registrar, Chevayur Sub Registrar Office, Kozhikode; Indian Bank; B. Ranjith

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2024-07-24
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anil Kumar

Respondents

Sub Registrar Chevayur Sub Registrar Office, Kozhikode
Indian Bank
B. Ranjith

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. Jayesh Mohankumar
• Pushparajan Kodoth
• Vandana Menon
• Vimal Vijay
• P. Shamsuddeen

Counsels for Respondents

• Binoy Vasudevan
• Nirmal S
• Veena Hari
• K. V. Rajeswari
• Sreejith V. S.
• Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Anil Kumar, approached the Kerala High Court seeking to compel the 2nd respondent bank to disclose the total amount due to close the loan and to permit full repayment so as to release documents submitted at the time of availing the loan. He further sought to restrain the Sub Registrar from registering the Sale Certificate issued in favour of the 3rd respondent. The bank had sanctioned a loan in 2005 secured by mortgage of the petitioner’s property; on default, the property was auctioned and purchased by the 3rd respondent, who obtained Ext.R3(a) Sale Certificate and possession by 2009. The bank then proceeded under SARFAESI, and the petitioner's efforts to redeem were thwarted, including an ex-parte decree against him and a dismissed application to set aside that order. The petitioner relied on Surinder Pal Singh v. Vijaya Bank and Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors to contend that redemption rights survive until the Sale Certificate is registered and possession is handed over. The respondents argued that the loan account was NPAs, the property was sold, and Ext.R3(a) had been registered; a civil court decree had been obtained, and hence redemption rights could not be asserted. The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, noting the prior ex-parte proceedings and delivery of possession to the 3rd respondent.

Provisions of Law Cited

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends he should be allowed to redeem the mortgage debt before the Sale Certificate is registered, citing Surinder Pal Singh v. Vijaya Bank and Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors to argue that redemption rights persist until such registration and possession transfer. He seeks a certified total amount due to enable full payment and requests the Sub Registrar to refrain from registering the Sale Certificate in favour of the 3rd respondent, asserting a right to redeem the mortgaged property.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents assert that the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset, the property was sold, and Ext.R3(a) Sale Certificate was issued in favour of the 3rd respondent with delivery of possession. They note the ex-parte decree and dismissal of a set-aside application, arguing that since securitisation proceedings and a civil court decree have been obtained, the petitioner cannot revive a right to redeem under the challenged circumstances; the petition is without merit.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Surinder Pal Singh v. Vijaya Bank and others	Civil Appeal No.6843/2023	Overruled	The High Court did not accept the proposition that the borrower’s right to redeem continues until the Sale Certificate is registered; given the extant ex parte decree and registration of sale, the petitioner’s proposed redemption right could not prevail under these facts.
Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited	2023 (5) KLT 599	Mentioned Only	The judgment cites Celir LLP as a precedent invoked by the petitioner but does not rely on or apply its proposition to sustain redemption; it is merely referenced without affecting the outcome.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 3780 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONER:** **ANIL KUMAR AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE BALAN, AISWARYA NIVAS, C.H. COLONY, CHEVARAMBALAM P.O., CHEVAYUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 017.** **BY ADVS. K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH VANDANA MENON VIMAL VIJAY P.SHAMSUDDEEN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE SUB REGISTRAR CHEVAYUR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 017. 2 INDIAN BANK 114/18, KALLAI ROAD BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 002. 3 B. RANJITH AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. K. RAMACHANDRAN, 24/1666 A, RAMANEEYAM, MEVANNAPARAMB, MANKAVU P.O., VALAYANAD AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK & DISTRICT, PIN – 673 007.** **BY ADVS. BINOY VASUDEVAN NIRMAL S VEENA HARI(K/775/2006) K.V.RAJESWARI(K/1308/2002) SRI.SREEJITH V.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.07.2024 AND THE COURT ON 24.07.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.3780/20024 : 2 : ## **N. NAGARESH, J.** ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` ## W.P.(C) No.3780 of 2024 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` _Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 2024_ ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The petitioner, who had availed a financial advance from the Indian Bank, is before this Court seeking to direct the 2[nd] respondent-Bank to inform the petitioner the total amount due to close the loan and to accept the same. The petitioner further seeks to permit him to clear the entire dues and release the documents submitted at the time of availing the loan. The petitioner also seeks to direct the 1[st] respondent-Sub Registrar not to register the Sale Certificate issued in favour of the 3[rd] respondent. 2. The petitioner availed a loan mortgaging his property. When the petitioner defaulted in repayment of loan, the property was put to auction and the 3[rd] respondent W.P.(C) No.3780/20024 : 3 : purchased the sale in auction. According to the petitioner, the Sale Certificate in favour of the 3[rd] respondent has not been registered. 3. The petitioner requested to redeem the mortgaged property. The petitioner is, however, not permitted to do so. The Bank obtained an ex-parte decree against the petitioner. Though the petitioner submitted application to set aside the ex-parte order, the same was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The petitioner states that in Surinder Pal Singh v. Vijaya Bank and others [Civil Appeal No.6843/2023], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the right of the borrower to redeem would be available till the Sale Certificate is registered and the possession is handed over. Since the Sale Certificate has not been registered, the petitioner has a right to redeem the mortgage. The petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in _**Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited** [2023 (5) KLT 599]_ to contend that the right of redemption available to the W.P.(C) No.3780/20024 : 4 : borrower would continue. 5. The 3[rd] respondent resisted the writ petition. The 3[rd] respondent stated that the loan account of the petitioner was declared as Non Performing Asset and the mortgaged property was sold. The 3[rd] respondent purchased the property in auction. Ext.R3(a) Sale Certificate was issued in favour of the 3[rd] respondent on 31.03.2008. The petitioner has been adopting all heinous methods to retain the property. The petitioner is even trying to physically assault the 3[rd] respondent. 6. The 3[rd] respondent pointed out that he has already got delivery of the property through Ext.R3(b) order of the Principal Munsiff's Court-II, Kozhikode. The petitioner has concealed material facts before this Court. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1[st] respondent and the respective counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. W.P.(C) No.3780/20024 : 5 : 8. The petitioner had availed loan from the 2[nd] respondent-Bank in the year 2005. On the failure of the petitioner to repay the loan, the Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Ultimately, the property was put to auction in the year 2008. The 3[rd] respondent purchased the property in auction. Ext.R3(a) is the Sale Certificate issued in favour of the 3[rd] respondent. The 3[rd] respondent was put in possession of the property in the year 2009. 9. It is evident from the pleadings that the 3[rd] respondent filed OS No.680/2019 in the Principal Munsiff's Court-II, Kozhikode for recovery of possession. The suit was declared ex-parte in favour of the 3[rd] respondent. Though the petitioner filed IA to set aside ex-parte order, the same was dismissed. 10. As the Bank has resorted to the securitisation proceedings for realisation of debt and since a civil court has passed a decree in favour of the 3[rd] respondent, the W.P.(C) No.3780/20024 : 6 : petitioner cannot now submit that the petitioner has a right to redeem the mortgage till the Sale Certificate is registered. 11. In this case, the petitioner had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal filing SA No.86/2008. The application filed by the petitioner IA No.792/2008 for staying further proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In the afore circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/22.07.2024 W.P.(C) No.3780/20024 : 7 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3780/2024** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.12.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.12.2023 GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.** - **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03.01.2024. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES DATED 14.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES DATED 06.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 06.01.2023 ISSUED BY KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.** **Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.08.2017.** - **Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF WATER CHARGE DATED 26.12.2023.** - **Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT REGISTRAR DATED 15.12.2023.** - **Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE CRP NO.387/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.04.2008 FROM THE 2ND REPONDENT.** - **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** - **Exhibit R3 (a) TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF SALE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK.** W.P.(C) No.3780/20024 : 8 : **Exhibit R3 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT - II, KOZHIKODE.** **Exhibit R3 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED ORDER DATED 07.02.2024 IN EP 147/2023.** **Exhibit R3 (d) TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED AND THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE CHEVAYOOR POLICE STATION DATED 23.02.2024.** **Exhibit R3 (e) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.12.2018 IN WP(C) 18301/2018.** **Exhibit R3 (f) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.358/2009 DATED 13.10.2011.** - **Exhibit R3 (g) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. 680/2019 DATED 25.02.2022.** **Exhibit R3 (h) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. (C).755/2023 DATED 10.04.2023.** **Exhibit R3 (i) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2023 IN CRP.387.2023.** **Exhibit R3(j)** **TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 24.02.2024, TAX RECEIPT DATED 08.06.2023, THANDAPPER ACCOUNT DATED 23.02.2024 AND BUILDING CERTIFICATE DATED 24.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**