SUSAMMA KUNJUMON CHETTAKKATTU HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 4.25 cents of property in Sy. No.27/1, block No.17 of Vazhappilly east village, Changanassery Taluk belonged to respondents 5 and 6. Credit facilities were availed by them in the year 1997 and 1999 from the third respondent Bank on mortgaging the property. When the debt was outstanding, on 07.08.2003 respondents 5 and 6 conveyed the property to the appellant as per Ext.P2 Sale Deed No.2254/03. Since the debt due to the Bank remained unpaid, ARC 1632/05 was initiated by the Bank, in which an award was passed. In execution of the award, the property in question was sold on 22.06.2007 and was purchased by the fourth respondent. The appellant challenged the same before the second respondent Assistant Registrar which was dismissed as per Ext.P5. The challenge before the Government was rejected as per Ext.P7. The contention of the petitioner is that auction was held by the Bank without notice to the appellant and is hence bad.

(2.) As noticed supra, the sale in favour of the appellant was subsequent to the mortgage in favour of the Bank. Rule 83 of the Co-operative Societies Rules provides for filing of an application to the Registrar, to set aside sale on the ground of irregularity or fraud. The rule enables even a person whose interests are affected by the sale to maintain an application. Rule 83 provides that the application is to be filed within thirty days from the date of sale. Such an application has not been filed either before the authority concerned or within the time stipulated. The appellant and the sixth respondent are none other than the children of the fifth respondent. Ext P2 sale in favour of the appellant is during the subsistence of the debt. The appellant cannot be heard to say that she was not aware of the ARC proceedings or the sale held pursuant thereto. Exts.P5 and P7 orders cannot be faulted with. The sale in favour of the appellant could only be subject to the mortgage right held by the Bank. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge.