SUNIL J. Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claimed title over an extent of 6.66 Ares of property and building comprised in Re-Sy. No.2 in block No.50 in old Sy. No.218/26-52 of Sasthamangalam Village, Thiruvananthapuram District. The said property was held under mortgage to the third respondent Bank, and when the debtor committed defaults, the bank proceeded under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the SARFAESI Act').

(2.) It is stated that the third respondent auctioned the property. The petitioners became the successful bidders, and a sale certificate bearing No. 1027 of 2023, dtd. 4/4/2023, was issued, as seen from Ext. P1. Though the sale was on 7/9/2020, the issuance of the sale certificate was delayed due to the pendency of S.A.No.365 of 2019, which was dismissed as per Ext.P2 order dtd. 30/3/2023. A third party had also sought to be impleaded in the securitisation proceedings, whose application was dismissed by the Tribunal and confirmed by this Court in O.P.(DRT) No. 426 of 2022, as seen from Ext. P2.

(3.) The petitioners submit that the right created after the mortgage to the bank will not survive, going by Sec. 26E of the SARFAESI Act. After acquiring the property as per Ext.P1 sale certificate, the petitioners preferred W.P.(C) No.16251 of 2023 before this Court for a direction to the Village Officer, Sasthamangalam, to effect mutation, which was allowed as per Ext.P4 judgment on 22/6/2023. The petitioners submit that after mutating the property as per the above judgment, when they obtained a copy of the Thandapper Extract from the Sasthamangalam Village Office, which is marked as Ext.P5, it was seen that the said property is subject to attachment vide two civil court orders and an order issued by the first respondent, Employees Provident Fund Organisation. The petitioners submit that, regarding the attachment order issued by the civil court, they have already taken steps to lift the attachment. The prayer in this case is confined to the claim of the Employees Provident Funds Organisation.