UCO Bank, M.G. Road Branch, Ravipuram, Kochi v State of Kerala and The Sub-Registrar, Thripunithura, Ernakulam, and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- T. R. Ravi
- Judgment Date
- 2022-11-29
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is disposed of. The 2nd respondent is directed to efface Entry No.2 regarding the order of attachment dated 29.11.2019 from Ext. P6 encumbrance certificate and from the Books of Registry maintained by the SRO, Tripunithura, and to issue an encumbrance certificate without such entries within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner-bank shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of with directions to erase the post-mortgage attachment and issue a clean encumbrance certificate within three weeks; the salience of statutory SARFAESI provisions acknowledged and applied.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- UCO Bank MG Road Branch, Ravipuram, Kochi - 682 015
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Registration Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - 695001
- The Sub-Registrar, The Sub-Registrar's Office, Thripunithura, Ernakulam- 682306
- Siju K. G., S/o K.G. Gangadharan, Kuzhiyamvellil House, Kochi - 682012
- Smt. S.R. Raveena, D/o K. Ravindranathnathan, Flat No. 6, Excel Champak, 14/38, AKBARABAD 2ND STREET, KODAMBAAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 024
- P. Sreeja Ravi, W/o K. Ravindranathnath, Flat No. 6, Excel Champak, 14/38, AKBARABAD 2ND STREET, KODAMBAAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 024
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Adv Deepak Joy.K
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt. Deepa V. (Govt Pleader)
- • Adv Sri Lijo Joseph (Thoppil)
Case Synopsis & Summary
UCO Bank, a nationalised lender, filed this writ petition seeking a direction to erase a post-mortgage attachment from the encumbrance certificate and the books of registry in respect of a property mortgaged to secure a loan of Rs.1.30 crore sanctioned on 02.02.2016 (Ext. P1) with a deposit of title deeds (Ext. P2). The account was classified as NPA on 31.01.2018. The borrowers failed to comply with a 2018 order to repay in instalments (Ext. P3), and the bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings, obtaining possession through an Advocate Commissioner and subsequently moving towards auction. The property was auctioned with two bidders; however, balance consideration remained unpaid. An encumbrance certificate (Ext. P6) shows an attachment dated 29.11.2019, which the bank seeks to erase from the encumbrance certificate and from the SRO records. The 5th respondent argued that the sale was not complete and redemption rights could revive until a sale certificate is issued, citing Axis Bank v. Hilal Ahmed Bhat. The 5th respondent also relied on earlier jurisprudence to suggest that attachments post-mortgage may have continuing effect. The bank, citing Keechery Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar; Federal Bank Ltd.; Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd.; and Madan v. Sub Registrar, contends attachments after the mortgage do not impair title and can be erased. The Court agrees, directing the 2nd respondent to efface entry No.2 from Ext. P6 and the registry records within three weeks, and to issue a clean encumbrance certificate, disposing of the petition.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner-bank submitted that the equitable mortgage was created by deposit of title deeds on 02.02.2016 (Ext. P2) and the loan account became NPA on 31.01.2018. It contended that attachments created after the mortgage cannot survive against the mortgagee’s interest; post-mortgage attachments do not affect title and can be erased, citing Madan v. Sub Registrar, Kollam, and other precedents such as Keechery Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar; Federal Bank Ltd.; Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. The bank relied on the SARFAESI framework (Section 13(4)) and sought effacement of Entry No.2 in Ext. P6 encumbrance certificate and corresponding registry entries, so as to enable the sale to be completed without impediment. The bank argued that the right of redemption ends on the publication of the notice of public auction; the auction sale completed and the sale deed is immune from post-mortgage encumbrances under the cited authorities.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contended that the auction was not yet validated as the balance amount remained unpaid; redemption rights could revive until a sale certificate is issued, citing Axis Bank v. Hilal Ahmed Bhat. They asserted that the entitlements of the 5th respondent arising from a detrimental arrangement (nerpanayam) and possession during pendency of proceedings may have continuing implications. They urged that attachment limitations and the effect of subsequent attachments must be considered in light of the Court’s earlier decisions (Keechery, Sree Gokulam, etc.), and questioned the automatic erasure of post-mortgage attachments without a sale certificate. They argued the need to protect the interests of other claimants and ensure due process in the mutation of records.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Secretary, Keechery Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar & Ors. | 2020 (5) KHC 231 | Positive | Cited to support the proposition that after creation of a mortgage, subsequent attachments create no encumbrance and can be mutated in favour of the auction purchaser. |
| Federal Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors. | 2016 (5) KHC 4504 | Positive | Cited to support that under SARFAESI, saleable interest is lost and sale deeds violating statutory mandates are illegal and unenforceable. |
| Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Emil and Eric Hospitality Services & Ors. | 2021 (6) KHC 411 | Positive | Cited for the principle that the mortgagor’s right of redemption ends on the date of publication of notice to public auction. |
| Axis Bank v. Hilal Ahmed Bhat & Anr. | 2022 (4) KHC 508(DB) | Positive | Cited to reflect the proposition that redemption rights may revive if the sale is not completed (balance unpaid) until a sale certificate is issued. |
| South Indian Bank Ltd. v. K.P.Ramchandran & Anr. | 2017 (2) KHC 998 | Positive | Cited to support that mere deposit of title deeds creates an equitable mortgage and post-mortgage attachments may not survive. |
| Madan v. Sub Registrar, Kollam | 2014 (1) KLT 406 | Positive | Cited for the principle that attachments after mortgage do not affect title or the sale once confirmed in favour of the bank. |
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 UCO Bank, M.G. Road Branch, Ravipuram, Kochi v State of Kerala and The Sub-Registrar, Thripunithura, Ernakulam, and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.