D VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition was filed by the appellant herein seeking a direction to the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. to return the original of sale deed No. 126 of 1997 of Sub Registry, Nemom to the petitioner on discharging the entire liabilities subsisting over the property on paying the amounts due from the 4th respondent towards chitty No. 56/99.

(2.) Writ petitioner is the owner in possession of 14.80 ares of land comprised in resurvey No. 758/5 of Nemom Village. She purchased the said property for valuable consideration as per sale deed No. 172 of 2003 of Sub Registry, Nemom on 16-1-2003 from the 4th respondent. While so, 3rd respondent visited the property and informed her that proceedings are being initiated against the property purchased by her for loan amounts due from the 4th respondent. She made enquiries with the 2nd respondent with regard to the loan transactions of the 4th respondent. She came to know that the 4th respondent had subscribed to chitty No.56/99 as Chittal No.25 conducted by the Chittal Unit of the first respondent and had pledged the property covered by Ext. P1 as security for repayment of the prize amount. The liability subsisting as on December 2003 with regard to that chitty transaction is Rs. 1,14,147/-. Petitioner claimed that she is a bona fide purchaser for value. Therefore she approached the 2nd and 3rd respondents and informed them that she is ready and willing to clear off the entire liability subsisting under chitty No. 56/99. She also requested the 2nd respondent to return the title deeds since the property in question was mortgaged to the 2nd respondent. Second respondent took up the stand that 4th respondent had availed of a new chitty loan as No. 1255 and an amount of Rs. 2,13,633/- is outstanding as liability as on December, 2003. Fourth respondent, towards the said chitty loan, has offered a property having an extent of 12.5 cents comprised in survey No.36/5 of Manacaud Village as security for the said loan transaction. Fourth respondent has also offered six cents of property belonging to him comprised in Sy. No. 1679/1 and 1679/2 as

(3.) Learned single Judge took the view that eventhough the property : purchased by the petitioner was not mortgaged so far as other loan transactions are concerned, the KSFE being a creditor can proceed against the 4th respondent in respect of rest of his assets though not mortgaged. Learned single Judge accepted the stand of respondents 1 and 2 that they cannot release the title deed to the petitioner in respect of one item of mortgaged property, unless all arrears are cleared by the 4th respondent in respect of other chitty transactions. Learned single Judge took the view, this position is consistent with the provisions of S.53 of the TP Act and S.44 of the RR Act. Under such circumstance learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition.