S.P. THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the auction purchaser of 4 = cents of property comprised in Sy. No. 182/Part of Madakkathara Village, Thrissur. The petitioner purchased the above property in the sale conducted by the 4th respondent under the SARFAESI Act and the petitioner paid the entire sale amount of Rs. 13,55,000/ -, evidenced by Ext.P1. As part of the business activity, the 4th respondent, as early as on 9/10/2007, had granted housing loan to one Mr. Badhusha.K.M., after creating equitable mortgage by depositing the title deed of his property with the 4trh respondent. Sale was to be registered in the Sub Registry Office of the 2nd respondent and the sale certificate was produced before the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent expressed his inability to register the same stating that three other attachment orders are there over the above property. Those attachment orders are passed by the Munsiff's Court Thrissur, in the suits filed by the 5th and 6th respondents respectively against the said Badhusha. Though the petitioner pointed out before the 2nd respondent that the attachment orders will not affect the sale of the property by the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act, the 2nd respondent did not accept the same and refused to register the sale deed. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent is also not willing to effect mutation, if the sale is registered by the 2nd respondent. Notice was duly served on the 5th and 6th respondents; but the 5th respondent alone entered appearance.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision in Housing Development Finance Corporation v. Sub Registry Officer : (2011 (3) KLJ 561) and submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been covered by the decision of this Court by the above decision. The learned counsel further drew my attention to paragraph -7 of the above decision, which reads as follows:

(3.) IN the above view, I am inclined to allow this Writ Petition as prayed for. The 2nd respondent is directed to register the sale certificate in the name of the petitioner when it is presented for registration before him and the 3rd respondent is directed to give effect to necessary mutation in the revenue records accordingly.