State Bank of India Asset Recovery Management Branch v Sub Registrar Edappally & Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Justice Murali Purushothaman
- Judgment Date
- 2023-12-06
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is disposed of. The 1st respondent Sub Registrar is directed to efface the entry regarding all attachments after 23.02.2011 in respect of the mortgaged property from Book No.1 maintained under Section 51 of the Registration Act, 1908, and the 2nd respondent Village Officer is directed to mutate the property de hors the aforementioned attachments, if the mutation application is otherwise in order. The court notes the attachments post‑dating the mortgage have no effect on the SARFAESI sale and directs their removal to secure marketability of the property under sale.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of with directions to erase post‑mortgage encumbrances and mutate the property accordingly
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- State Bank of India Asset Recovery Management Branch
Respondents
- The Sub Registrar Edappally, Office of the Sub Registrar, Edappally
- The Village Officer Edappally South Village, Edappally
- Thomaskutty Eapen Kochupurackal House, Athirampuzha, Kottayam
- M/S. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd, Ernakulam, represented by its Authorised Officer
- K.A. Joy Pra-12, Mahatma Road, Near Campion School, Ponekkara, Edappally, Ernakulam
- M/S. BRD Securities Limited, Thrissur Road, Kunnamkulam
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • M. Jithesh Menon
- • P. G. Maheshkumar
- • R. Brijesh
- • K. Indu (Pournami)
- • KURIAN T. VADAKKEL
Counsels for Respondents
- • S. Gopakumar
- • Anil Kumar P.V.
- • T. M. Binitha
- • Smt. Deepa V. (GP)
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition, filed by the State Bank of India Asset Recovery Management Branch ( secured creditor under SARFAESI), seeks deletion of encumbrance entries against its mortgaged property. Razia Fazal executed a housing loan in favor of the bank on 23 February 2011 by depositing title deeds creating an equitable mortgage over 1.39 ares with building CC XLVIII/1823 in Edappally South. After default, the Bank undertook proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, culminating in Ext. P5 sale certificate dated 29 July 2023. During due diligence for an encumbrance certificate, the bank found several attachments on the property arising from court orders; Ext. P6 shows that these attachments (entries 3–8) were created after the mortgage. The Bank contends that attachments post-dating the mortgage cannot affect its right to sell under SARFAESI and the borrower’s right to redeem under SARFAESI is extinguished upon sale. Relying on Madhan S. v. Sub Registrar, Kollam and Others and Keechery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar alias Sajitha P.M. and Others, as well as Ali Asharaf M.M. v. Sub Registrar, Thrissur, the petitioner seeks effacement of post‑mortgage attachments from the encumbrance register and mutation of the property. The court directs effacement of post‑mortgage attachments and mutation, disposing of the petition.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner bank contends that encumbrances attached after creation of the equitable mortgage (23.02.2011) cannot affect its right to sell the mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act. Relying on Madhan S. v. Sub Registrar, Kollam and Others (2014) and Keechery Service Co‑operative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar alias Sajitha P.M. and Others (2020), and reaffirmed by Ali Asharaf M.M. v. Sub Registrar, Thrissur, the bank argues that post‑mortgage attachments recorded in Ext. P6 are not enforceable against the bank’s sale; hence they must be effaced from the encumbrance register and mutation effected to reflect the bank’s title. The Ext. P5 sale under SARFAESI is free from those encumbrances; the borrower’s right to redeem is extinguished upon sale.
Contentions of Respondents
Not explicitly stated in the document.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Madhan S. v. Sub Registrar, Kollam and Others | 2014 (1) KHC 249; ILR 2014 (1) Ker.586; 2014 (1) KLJ 483; AIR 2014 Ker.54 | Positive | The court relies on Madhan’s ruling that attachments after the creation of the equitable mortgage do not affect the sale under SARFAESI and should be wiped off. |
| Keechery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar alias Sajitha P.M. and Others | 2020 (5) KHC 231; ILR 2020 (4) Ker.249; 2020(6) KLT 68; 2020(4) KLJ 970 | Positive | Division Bench affirmed the Madhan principle; the present case follows the same rationale that post‑mortgage attachments do not impede SARFAESI sales. |
| Ali Asharaf M.M. v. Sub Registrar, Thrissur | W.A. No.612/2015 | Positive | Affirmed the Madhan doctrine; supports the notification that post‑mortgage attachments do not affect sale or title transfer under SARFAESI. |
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 State Bank of India Asset Recovery Management Branch v Sub Registrar Edappally & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.