BIJU P.S. Vs. SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent had borrowed Rs.23,00,000.00 from the petitioner for his share trading business. Due to the failure on the part of the 3rd respondent to repay the amount as agreed, the petitioner approached the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Chavakkad and based on a compromise between the parties, Ext. P1 award dtd. 14/5/2015 was passed in the Pre-litigation petition P.L.P. No. 531/2015. As per Ext.P1, the 3rd respondent was required to repay the amount along with damages. However, the 3rd respondent failed to fulfill the said obligation and the petitioner filed E.P. No. 55/2015 before the Sub Court Thrissur for execution of Ext. P1 award. Consequently, the Court conducted an auction and the petitioner purchased the property.

(2.) The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent attempted to stall the confirmation of sale by all means, and various Execution Appeals and Execution First Appeal were filed at the instance of the 3rd respondent. However, all the appeals were dismissed by the Courts and the executing Court issued Ext. P3 sale certificate dtd. 30/9/2016 to the petitioner. Accordingly, the property was delivered to the petitioner. However, it later came to the notice of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent had mortgaged the property with M/s HDFC Limited. The petitioner states that this fact was suppressed by the 3rd respondent while entering into the agreement leading to Ext. P1 award.

(3.) Meanwhile, M/s HDFC Limited filed W.P.(C) No. 7244/2020 claiming that they had taken possession of the property under the SARFAESI Act, conducted an auction, and issued a sale certificate in favour of one Sulochana Chinnappan, but, the Sub Registrar refused to register the property due to the previous registration of the Ext. P3 Sale Certificate issued by the executing Court to the petitioner. The petitioner, the 3rd respondent, his wife, the 4th respondent and Smt. Sulochana Chinnappan, the auction purchaser, were parties to the said writ petition. During the pendency of the said writ petition, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.25,00,000.00 to Sulochana Chinnappan, and all claims including that of the HDFC Bank were settled and as a result, this Court set aside the sale certificate issued to Smt. Sulochana Chinnappan.