Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited v. Sub Registrar, Thrissur; Village Officer, Vilvattom; Tahsildar, Thrissur; Prasanth K.P.; Surendarn K.G.
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN J.
- Judgment Date
- 2023-11-14
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition disposed of. Directions issued: (i) 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5 after hearing the petitioner and the additional respondents; (ii) petitioner to produce an authenticated certificate from HDFC certifying the date of mortgage creation; (iii) if the attachment order referred to in Ext.P-3 was rendered after the mortgage creation, the Sub-Registrar to issue a notice to the attachment beneficiary, hear the parties, and decide on the limited factual issue; (iv) if post-mortgage, register an additional entry under S.89(5) noting that the attachment stands effaced; (v) upon completing the process, issue a fresh Encumbrance Certificate without the impugned attachment and, if necessary, issue ROR certificates; (vi) the petitioner may produce a fresh Encumbrance Certificate before the Village Officer for further action. The petition is disposed of with these directions within one month for registration of the sale certificate and related records.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of with directions as described above.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED
Respondents
- THE SUB REGISTRAR, THRISSUR SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, PALACE ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680020
- THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILVATTOM VILLAGE, VILVATTOM P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680008
- THE TAHSILDAR THRISSUR TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 673020
- PRASANTH K.P.,(ADDL. R4.) S/O KUTTANKULANGARA PRAKASHAN, AGED 43, T C NO. 18/114, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA DESOM, KIZHAKKEKOTTA P O, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680005.
- SURENDARN K.G., AGED 49,(ADDL. R5.) KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTUMUCK, CHEROOR, CHEROOR P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 008
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • SHIJU VARGHESE
- • SACHU THOMAS
Counsels for Respondents
- • SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN – SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioner, Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC), had lent money to the 4th respondent and created an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deed. After default, HDFC initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and the property was put up for sale; Ext. P3 is the sale certificate. The 5th respondent had obtained an attachment order in O.S. No. 1034/2022, which is alleged to be subsequent to the creation of the mortgage. HDFC contends that the attachment cannot defeat the sale and seeks effacement of the attachment entry from Book No.1 under Section 89(5) of the Registration Act. The petitioner relies on a decision in Shamla K.U. v. Sub Registrar, Kodungalloor (2018 KHC 811), which directs the Sub Registrar to decide whether an attachment is post-mortgage and notes the need for procedural fairness and a mortgage-date certificate. The court heard the petitioner and the Government Pleader. Following the cited authority, the bench directs the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5 after hearing the petitioner and additional respondents; require an authenticated mortgage-date certificate from the financier (HDFC); if attachment is shown to be after mortgage creation, the Sub-Registrar shall make an entry to efface it under S.89(5), issue a fresh Encumbrance Certificate, and the Village Officer shall similarly efface the entry. The writ petition is disposed of with these directions and a time-bound register-and-certify requirement for the encumbrance records and sale certificate."
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that since the attachment by the Munsiff Court is subsequent to the creation of the equitable mortgage, the entry regarding the attachment has to be effaced from Book No.1 maintained by the 1st respondent under Section 89 of the Registration Act. The petitioner relies on Shamla K.U. and Another v. Sub Registrar, Kodungalloor (2018 KHC 811), where the court directed the Sub Registrar to decide, after notification to the attachment beneficiary, whether the attachment was created before or after the mortgage and to condition the entry accordingly. The petitioner seeks an authenticated certificate from the financial institution certifying the date of mortgage creation and urges that the attachment be effaced if it is post-mortgage to permit registration of the sale certificate under the SARFAESI framework.
Contentions of Respondents
Not explicitly summarized in the provided portion of the document; the proceedings record the hearing with the petitioner and the Government Pleader. The judgment records directions rather than a detailed respondent’s argumentative brief.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shamla K.U. and Another v. Sub Registrar, Kodungalloor | 2018 KHC 811 | Mentioned Only | Cited to guide procedural fairness and the need for mortgage-date certification; not treated as binding precedent in this judgment. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited v. Sub Registrar, Thrissur; Village Officer, Vilvattom; Tahsildar, Thrissur; Prasanth K.P.; Surendarn K.G. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.