PRADEEP KUMAR P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The quest of the petitioner, who is admittedly a borrower of certain loan facilities from the 6th respondent - South Indian Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank' for short), to build a defense against the claims of the said Bank has led him to this Court posing a very inventive question: namely, whether Government of Kerala have unbridled powers under Sec. 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act ('TP Act' for short), to declare every part of the State being brought within its ambit, for the purpose of creation of equitable mortgage by deposit of Title Deeds.

(2.) The petitioner concedes that he had taken a loan facility from the Bank and that he and his mother had 'delivered' their title documents to them as 'security' for a loan facility availed of by a Firm called 'Sama Rubbers', of which, he is the Managing Partner. His contention, however, is that since the documents were delivered at Kanjirapilly, it cannot be construed to have created an equitable mortgage over the property in question because, as per the original provisions of Sec. 58(f) of the 'T.P Act', such deposit was permitted only in certain specified towns, though admitting that the statutory Scheme allows the State Government, by notification, to bring within its ambit 'any other town'.

(3.) The singular argument of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 notification issued by the Government of Kerala, invoking their power under Sec. 58(f) of the 'TP Act', has been done irregularly and without proper application of mind because, it extends every part of the territory of the State within the purlieus of the said provision and that this is egregiously improper, because when 'any town' is brought within the umbra of the said provision, the Government requires to satisfy itself and to explain why it was so done.