Shibu Chacko & James Mathew v. State of Kerala & ors

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 15860 of 2017** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 SHIBU CHACKO, AGED 42, S/O.CHACKO, THEKKEKUNNEL HOUSE,KALLARAKUTTY P.O., MANAKKADAVU DESOM,VELLATHOOVAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685562, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MRS.JOLLY JOSE, AGED 48, W/O.JOSE MATHEW,KARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULAMTHURUTHY VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -682314. 2 JAMES MATHEW, AGED 43, S/O.MATHEW, KARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,MULAMTHURUTHY, PERUMPALLY P.O.,MULAMTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM - 682314, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,MR.JOSE MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, KARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., MULAMTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682314.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.V.VARGHESE (KANJIRAMATTOM)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, KOCHI - 682030.** - **3 THE TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,ERNAKULAM - 682011.** **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MULAMTHURUTHY VILLAGE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., PIN - 682314.** ***5 MS SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LTD, ELIZABATH ALEXANDER MEMORIAL BUILDING, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031, REP.BY ITS DULY AUTHORISED OFFICER.** **BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE** *** ADDL.R-5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 IN I.A.NO.18808/2017.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).26397/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J** . ----------------------------- W.P(C).Nos.26397 & 15860 Of 2017 --------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of August , 2018. ## **J U D G M E N T** As both these petitions are preferred by the same petitioners and as the subject matter of the petitions deal with the same property, these cases are disposed of on the basis of the common judgment. WP(C) No. 26397/2017 The 4[th] respondent herein (M/s.Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd.,) is a Housing Finance Company and is stated to be a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act. According to the petitioners, they along with two other persons viz., one Dr.Roy Emmanuevel and Sri Joy Francis, became co-owners in relation to the property having an extent of 8.13 Ares comprised in old Sy No. 321/2 (Re.Sy.No.262/1) of Mulamthuruthy Village. The said property was a registered holding of one Sri Baby P Varghese and his wife Smt.Annie Baby, who were holding the same under the sale deed No.3330/94 of SRO Mulamthuruthy, it is averred . The said property was mortgaged by Sri.Baby P Varghese and his wife Smt.Annie Babie with M/s.Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd.,whose successor-in-interest is the 4[th] respondent Housing Finance Company. The said property was later taken over by the 4[th] respondent under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the same was sold in public auction by duly following the ::4:: W.P(C).Nos.26397 & 15860 Of 2017 procedure under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. The sale so conducted, the petitioners and the aforesaid two other persons had purchased the said property as evident from Ext.P3 sale certificate and document No.3207/06 dated 27.09.06 was also duly registered with SRO, Mulamthuruthy in that regard. The said proceedings were challenged by one Sri. James Mundadan, an attaching creditor of the borrowers, as per WP(C) No. 969/2007 of this Court, which was dismissed by this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 26.08.2016. It is further averred that the aforesaid two other co-owners in Ext.P3 had released their rights in favour of the petitioners through release deed No.3126/12 of SRO, Mulamthuruthy and that the petitioners thus became joint owners of the property covered by Ext.P3 sale certificate. It is further stated that the security interest in favour of the secured creditor, M/s.Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd.,(predecessor of the 4[th] respondent), was effected on 18.12.02. It is long thereafter that certain attaching creditors had secured orders of attachment in respect of the above said property covered by Ext.P3 sale certificate. The details of the attachment orders secured by various attachment creditors are given in pages 4and 5 of the above writ petition, which reads as follows: _Sl. Date Parties No._ ::5:: W.P(C).Nos.26397 & 15860 Of 2017 |_1_|_19/06/04_|_Shibu P Thacheth, Thacheth, Mulamthuruthy, Vs Baby_<br>_Srambikkal, Pallathitta, Mulamthuruthy_| |---|---|---| |_2_|_03/08/04_|_James Mundadan, Mundadan House, Karithala Road, Vs_<br>_Baby Srambikkal, Pallathittayil_| |_3_|_03/08/04_|_Reji John, Punnakkatt, Perumpilly, Vs Baby Srambikkal,_<br>_Pallathittayil_| |_4_|_07/08/04_|_Sixam Funds & Finanace, Lillies Tower, Palarivattom Vs_<br>_Baby Srambikkal, Pallathittayil_| |_5_|_28/09/04_|_Bell Leasing & Hire Purchase Ltd, Chittoor road,_<br>_Ernakulam, Vs Baby Srambikkal, Pallathittayil ,_<br>_Mulamthuruthy_| |_6_|_23/11/04_|_Baby Varghese, Pallathittayil Vs Federal Bank,_<br>_Mulamthuruthy_| |_7_|_15/04/05_|_Baby P Varghese, Anie Baby, Pallathittayail,_<br>_Mulamthuruthy, Vs Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.,_<br>_Ernakulam._| Home Finance Ltd.,) had filed the requisite application before the Civil Court concerned and for lifting of the attachment and secured orders lifting those attachments and details of the orders in that regard are mentioned in para 3 of pages 5 and 6, which reads as follows: |_Sl._<br>_No_<br>_._|_Date_|_Description_|_Remarks_| |---|---|---|---| |_1_|_07/04/06_|_Claim Petn.No.I.A 1351/2006 in O.S_<br>_No.330/2004 (Sub Court Ernakulam)_|_Sundaram_<br>_Finance_<br>_Vs Shibu P_<br>_Thacheth_| |_2_|_07/04/06_|_Claim Petn.No.I.A 1350/2006 in O.S_<br>_No.420/2004 (Sub Court Ernakulam)_|_Sundaram_<br>_Finance_<br>_Vs_<br>_James_<br>_Mundadan_| |_3_|_29/06/06_|_Claim Petn.No.I.A 1220/2006 in O.S_<br>_No.418/2004 (Sub Court Ernakulam)_|_Sundaram_<br>_Finance Vs Reji_<br>_John_| |_4_|_29/06/06_|_Claim Petn.No.E.A 286/2006 in_<br>_E.P.No.383/2005_<br>_in_<br>_O.A_<br>_No.430/2004(Sub Court Ernakulam)_|_Sundaram_<br>_Finance_<br>_Vs_<br>_Sixam Funds_<br>_and Finanace_| ::6:: W.P(C).Nos.26397 & 15860 Of 2017 |_5_|_09/06/06_|_Claim Petn.No.I.A 1271/2006 in O.S_<br>_No.500/2004 (Sub Court Ernakulam)_|_Sundaram_<br>_FinanceVs Bell_<br>_Leasing & Hire_<br>_Purchase Ltd._| |---|---|---|---| |_6_|_12/04/06_|_Claim Petn.No.I.A 2556/2006 in O.S_<br>_No.1702/2004_<br>_(Munsiff's_<br>_Court_<br>_Ernakulam)_|_Sundaram_<br>_Finance_<br>_Vs_<br>_Federal Bank_| produced as Exts.P5 to P10 respectively. The encumbrance in that regard not so have been effaced by the 3[rd] respondent, Sub Registrar, SRO Mulamthuruthy from Ext.P11 Encumbrance Certificate. Thereupon, the petitioners have filed Ext.P13 application/petition dated 27.07.17, before the 3[rd] respondent SRO, requesting that necessary steps to be taken to efface the above said attachments, from the encumbrance noted in Ext.P11. Ext.P15 is the acknowledgment card pertaining to Ext.P13 petition. By way of abundant caution, the petitioners have also filed Ext.P12 petition before the 2[nd] respondent, District Registrar seeking the same relief for effacement of the attachments. It is in the light of these factual averments that the petitioners are filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers: _“i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the respondents 2 and 3 or the concerned among them to forthwith erase the attachment entries occurring in Ext.P11 encumbrance certificate as well as in book No.1 maintained by 3[rd] respondent with Mulamthuruthy sub registry in view of Ext.P3 sale certificate in so far as the entries regarding the properties subject matter of Ext.P3 sale certificate concerned. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents to forthwith take up Exts.P12 and P13 applications and forthwith pass orders on the same erasing the attachments.”_ 4. Heard Sri P.V Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for ::7:: W.P(C).Nos.26397 & 15860 Of 2017 the petitioners, Smt. A.C Vidhya, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.Varghese C Kuriakose, the learned counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent. 5. In the instant case, the mortgage was created in respect of the property covered by Ext.P3 in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the 4[th] respondent on 18.12.2002. From a perusal of the pleadings and materials on record as per Exts. P5 to P10, it is seen that all the attachments in question have been effected long after the creation of the said mortgage. 6. This Court has held in the judgment in _**Madan.S v. Sub Registrar, Kollam**_ **,** reported in 2014(1) KHC 249 **=** 2014 (1) KLT 406 **,** that the preponderance of judicial opinion leads to the irresistible conclusion that the sale of the mortgaged property in favour of the party under sale certificate under the SARFAESI Act is free of all encumbrances and that the attachments effected subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the bank do not affect the title and ownership of the petitioner over the subject property, who purchased the property in the sale proceedings and that such attachments have no impact on the sale conducted under the SARFAESI Act and the same ceases to have any effect or fall to the ground the moment the sale is confirmed. Accordingly, this Court in the said judgment in _**Madhan's**_ case, (supra) has directed the SRO therein and the respondent-Village ::8:: W.P(C).Nos.26397 & 15860 Of 2017 Officer to efface the attachment effected subsequent to the mortgage from the relevant records or otherwise it was held that such attachments would remain as permanent taboo prejudicially affecting the marketability and title to the property even though they ceased to have any legal efficacy. It will be profitable to refer paras 1 & 9 of the above said judgment of this Court in _**Madhan's**_ case (supra), which read as follows (see KLT report) : _“Can the attachments effected subsequent to the creation of equitable mortgage be effaced after the property is purchased by another in sale conducted by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal?_ _xxx xxx xxx_ _9. The preponderance of judicial opinion leads to the irresistible conclusion that the sale of the mortgaged property in favour of the petitioner under Ext. P5 sale certificate under the Act is free of all encumbrances. The attachments effected subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the bank do not affect the title and ownership of the petitioner over the subject property. Such attachments have no impact on the sale conducted under the Act and the same ceases to have any effect or fall to the ground the moment the sale is confirmed in favour of the petitioner. The declaration so sought by the petitioner is therefore granted and I further direct the Sub-Registrar and the Village Officer to efface the attachments effected subsequent to the mortgage from the relevant records. Otherwise those attachments would remain as a permanent taboo prejudicially affecting the marketability and title to the property even though they ceased to have any legal efficacy. The needful in relation to the property bought by the petitioner shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”_ 7. It is clear from Ext.P-5 to P-10 orders passed by the Civil Court concerned lifting the attachment orders earlier issued, that mortgage over the property was created in favour of the 4[th] respondent bank on 18.12.2002 and that mortgage has been created long prior to the attachment orders in question. Further it can be seen from Ext.P-11 ::9:: W.P(C).Nos.26397 & 15860 Of 2017 encumbrance certificate that items 2 to 7 thereof are the encumbrances in relation to the attachment which have been subsequently effected as per Exts.P-5 to P-10 orders. It is pointed out by the petitioner that serial No.1 of Ext.P-11 has been entered at that time is the entry in relation to the sale in respect of the property in favour of the aforesaid borrower Baby. Serial No.8 of Ext.P-11 is in respect of encumbrance noted consequent to the order of attachment secured by the 4[th] respondentbank over the said property when the 4[th] respondent has filed O.P.No.90/2005 before the District Court, Ernakulam, under Sec.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Serial No.9 of Ext.P-11 is the sale certificate issued as per Ext.P-3. Thus, it is clear that the encumbrances noted in Ext.P-11 as per serial Nos.2 to 7 thereof all pertaining to attachment orders which have been effected long after the creation of mortgage in favour of the 4[th] respondent-bank and still further the said attachments have already been effected as per Exts.P-5 to P-10. The learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent-bank submits that since the property has already been sold to the petitioner as per Ext.P-3 sale certificate, encumbrance noted in favour of 4[th] respondent in serial No.8 of Ext.P-11 is also be to be effaced. The 3[rd] respondent-SRO was directed by this Court to furnish instructions and he filed a statement dated 24.10.2017 stating that SARFAESI sale vest the property in the purchaser free of all encumbrances mentioned in the encumbrance ::10:: W.P(C).Nos.26397 & 15860 Of 2017 certificate and existence of the entries in the encumbrance will not in any way prejudice the purchaser under the SARFAESI Act. However, the 3[rd] respondent has taken a hyper technical contention that encumbrance certificate was issued under Sec.89(5) of the Registration Act and such entries in that regard is not sanctioned by law and that all transaction pertaining to the land have to be reflected in the regard. The 3[rd] respondent has also fairly conceded that the SARFAESI sale as per Ext.P-3, vest the property in the purchaser free of all encumbrances as per Ext.P-11. But the stand of the 3[rd] respondent that the encumbrance certificate is a permanent record and that the encumbrances noted in the certificate cannot be erased, etc, goes against the legal position well settled by this Court in the decisions as in _**Madhan v. Sub Registrar**_ , reported in 2014(1) KHC 249 **=** 2014 (1) KLT 406. Accordingly, it is ordered that encumbrances noted in respect of the property covered by Ext.p-3 as per serial Nos. 2 to 8, have no efficacy and the 3[rd] respondent shall pass necessary orders to ensure that the said encumbrances are erased and a proper encumbrance certificate is issued to the petitioners after such deletion. Further, the petitioners may have to remit the requisite fee, if any, so prescribed for the issuance of encumbrance certificate as aforestated. Necessary steps in that regard should be completed by the SRO within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. ::11:: W.P(C).Nos.26397 & 15860 Of 2017 With these observations and directions, W.P(C).No.26397/2017 will stand finally disposed of. ## W.P.(C).No.15860/2017 8. The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: - _“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the respondents 3 and 4 or the concerned among them to forthwith accept basic tax in relation to the properties covered by Exts.P3 and P5 from the petitioners if necessary by effecting mutation in the thandaper account within a time frame to be stipulated by this Honourable court._ - _(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the 2[nd] respondent to forthwith take up Ext.P6 representation and consider the same and pass orders directing the 4[th] respondent to forthwith accept basic tax from the petitioners based on Ext.P3 and P5, the title documents._ - _(iii) Allow the petitioners to recover the full costs incurred for this proceedings from the Respondent No.4.”_ 9. The petitioners herein are the same as in W.P.(C). No.26397/2017 dealt with hereinabove. The main prayer in this Writ Petition (Civil) is for a direction to the 4[th] respondent-Village Officer to accept land tax in respect of the property covered by Ext.P-3 herein, which is the same as the property covered by Ext.P-3 in W.P.(C). No.26397/2017. Ext.R-4(a) encumbrance certificate produced in W.P(C).No.15860/2017 has been issued subsequent to the one issued as per Ext.P-11 in W.P.(C).No.26397/2017. Encumbrance noted as per serial Nos. 2 to 7 of Ext.R-4(a) are the same as those noted as per serial Nos.2 to 7 in Ext.P-11 encumbrance certificate produced in W.P.(C). No.26397/2017. This Court has already directed encumbrances have lost its efficacy in view of the reasons already stated in the judgment in W.P.(C).No.26397/2017. Serial No.9 of Ext.R-4(a) is a mortgage ::12:: W.P(C).Nos.26397 & 15860 Of 2017 executed by the petitioners and two others in favour of Service CoOperative Bank, Mulanthuruthy and serial No.10 of Ext.R-4(a) is the records of said mortgage marked in serial No.9. It is seen that encumbrance noted as against serial Nos.1 to 7 in Ext.R-4(a) produced in W.P.(C).No.15860/2017 corresponds to the entries as per serial Nos.2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 respectively of Ext.P-11 encumbrance certificate produced in W.P(C).No.26397/2017. It has already been held by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C).No.26397/2017 that the said items have lost its efficacy. In the instant case the 4[th] respondent-Village Officer, Mulanthuruthy, has refused to accept land tax from the petitioners in respect of the property by Ext.P-3 for the reason that encumbrance has been noted in serial Nos.2 to 8 in Ext.R-4(a) encumbrance certificate. Serial No.8 of Ext.R-4(a) in this Writ Petition corresponds to entry No.9 of Ext.P-11 in W.P.(C).No.26397/2017, which is the sale certificate in favour of the petitioners as per Ext.P-3 and serial No.9 of Ext.R-4(a) in this Writ Petition is the Grahan created by the petitioners in favour of Mulanthuruthy Service Co-operative Bank and which has been released as per release deed mentioned in serial No.10 thereof. Serial No.11 is the release deed executed by the other 2 co-owners in favour of the petitioners herein about which reference has already been made in W.P.(C).No.26397/2017. Serial Nos.12 & 13 of Ext.R-4(a) in this Writ Petition are entries endorsing about the ::13:: W.P(C).Nos.26397 & 15860 Of 2017 communication of the the lifting of the attachments. Therefore, the abovesaid encumbrances, which have lost its efficacy, cannot be the ground for the 4[th] respondent-Village Officer to refuse acceptance of the land tax from the petitioners. Moreover, it has been held by this Court in the decision as in _**Sudhan K.K. & ors v. State of Kerala & ors**_ ., reported in 2013 (4) KHC 201, that pendency of civil suit can never be a bar with regard to acceptance of land tax, unless specifically restrained from accepting tax by virtue of an order passed by the competent court. This Court has held in the judgment in _**Nivin Raju v. Basheer & ors**_ , reported in 2016 (3) KLJ 197, as follows: _“Under the provisions contained in the Land Tax Act, a holder of land is to pay tax. Payment of land tax or mutation in favour of the petitioner will not enable the petitioner to claim any better title and it will not in any way affect the adjudication of the disputes between the respondents in the pending civil cases, as held in the judgments supra. Going by the provisions contained in Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, there is no impediment for affecting mutation. Therefore, there is no meaning in compelling the petitioner to wait till the disposal of the civil suits, for effecting mutation. The right of a bona fide purchaser to enjoy his property cannot be permitted to be defeated merely because somebody files civil suit to settle scores with someone. Petitioner has submitted his application on the strength of Ext.P1 sale deed. Going by the provisions contained in Rule 3 the revenue officials should have effected the mutation immediately after the registration of the sale deed, in which event the petitioner would not have faced with such situations. In the above circumstances I quash Ext.P10. There shall be a direction to the 5[th] respondent to effect mutation based on Ext.P9 application of petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the mutation shall not affect the adjudication of the civil cases pending between petitioner and the respondents in any manner.”_ In view of the above said aspects, it is made clear that action of the 4[th] respondent-Village Officer, Mulanthuruthy in refusing to accept land tax from the petitioners is illegal and improper. Consequently, it is ::14:: W.P(C).Nos.26397 & 15860 Of 2017 ordered that the 4[th] respondent -Village officer will accept the land tax from the petitioners for the unpaid period in question and will issue receipts in that regard without any further delay. With these observations and directions, W.P.(C).No.15860/2017 will stand finally disposed of. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** **lsn/bkn** ::15:: W.P(C).Nos.26397 & 15860 Of 2017 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 09.09.2013 EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF SMT.JOLLY JOSE.** - **EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF SHRI JOSE MATHEW.** - **EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3207/2006 ON 27.09.2006 WITH THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE MULAMTHURUTHY.** **EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.08.2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.969/2007 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.3126/2012 IN FAVOUR OF SHIBU CHACKO.** - **EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 25.04.2017 TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4.** - **EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON 25.04.2017.** - **EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ON 25.04.2017.** - **EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 ON 25.04.2017.** **EXHIBIT-P10: ORDER DTD.7.4.2006 IN CLAIM PETITION NO.I.A.NO.1351/2006 IN O.S.NO.330/2004 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM (SUBDARAM FINANCE VS. SHIBU P.THACHETH)** ::16:: W.P(C).Nos.26397 & 15860 Of 2017 **EXT.P-11 ORDER DTD 7.4.2006 IN CLAIM PETITION NO.I.A.NO.1350/2006 IN O.S.NO.420/2004 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM (SUNDARAN FINANCE VS. JAMES MUNDADAN)** **EXT.P12 : ORDER DTD. 29.6.2006 IN CLAIM PETITION NO,I.A.NO.1220/2006 IN O.S.NO.418/2004 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM (SUNDARAM FINANCE VS. REJI JOHN)** **EXT.P13 : ORDER DTD. 29.6.2006 IN CLAIM PETITION NO.E.A.NO.286/2006 IN E.P.NO.383/2005 IN O.S.NO.430/2004 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM (SUNDARAM FINANCE V. SIXAM FUNDS AND FINANCE)** **EXT.P14 : ORDER DTD. 9.6.2006 IN CLAIM PETITION NO.I.ANO.1271/2006 IN O.S.NO.500/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM (SUNDARAM FINANCE VS. BELL LEASING 7 HIRE PURCHASE LTD.)** **EXT.P15 : ORDER DTD.12.4.2006 IN CLAIM PETITION NO.I.A.NO.2556/2006 IN O.S.NO.1702/2004 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM (SUNDARAM FINANC4E VS. FEDERAL BANK)** **EXT.P16 : ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 19.2.2007.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :** **ANX.R-4(a) : COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE.**