Kerala High Court
Janambika vs Sub Registrar on 18 December, 2025
WP(C) NO. 46743 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:97803
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 46743 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
JANAMBIKA,
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O. GOPINATHAN,SREEVILASAM HOUSE,THIRUNALLOR
P.O,PALLIPPURAM,ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688541
BY ADVS.
SMT.NAVAMI M. RAJ
SHRI.SACHU THOMAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SUB REGISTRAR,
PANAVALLY SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE,PANAVALLY,ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, PIN - 688526
2 VILLAGE OFFICER,
PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE
OFFICE,PALLIPPURAM,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN -
688541
3 M/S KAVITHA FINANCE,
VALAPPU BRANCH, ITTIKUNNATHU BUILDING, NO. 9/ 332E,
VALAPPU, MALIPURAM P.O, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING
PARTNER, PIN - 682511
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. K. M. FAISAL, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 46743 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:97803
BASANT BALAJI J
======================
W.P. (C) No. 46743 of 2025
========================
Dated 18th day of December 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of 4.36 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 43/8A1 and 43/8A2 of Pallippuram Village, Alappuzha District, falling within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar Office, Panavally. A third party had availed a personal loan of ₹30,000/- from the 3rd respondent company, which is engaged in the business of granting loans on hypothecation and guarantee basis. The petitioner stood as a guarantor for the said loan in terms of the loan agreement executed between the parties. Due to financial difficulties, the borrower defaulted in repayment of certain instalments, whereupon the 3rd respondent initiated arbitration proceedings in accordance with the agreement. The dispute was referred to a sole arbitrator in Arbitration Reference No. 538 of 2023.In an interlocutory WP(C) NO. 46743 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:97803 application filed by the 3rd respondent, an interim order was passed on 08.12.2023 permitting conditional attachment of the petitioner's property. Pursuant thereto, the said order was communicated to the Sub Registrar Office, Panavally, and the Village Officer, Pallippuram, directing them to record the attachment in the registration and revenue records. Consequently, the attachment entry came to be reflected in the encumbrance and revenue records. Upon discharge of the entire liability, the petitioner and the borrower approached respondents 1 and 2 seeking removal of the attachment entry from the registration and revenue records. However, they were informed that such removal could be effected only pursuant to an order passed by a competent court.
3. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the lst and 2nd respondents, to efface and remove the entry of attachment made pursuant to Exhibit P1 Order in the registration and WP(C) NO. 46743 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:97803 revenue records relating to the petitioner's property comprised in Survey Nos. 43/8A1, 43/8A2 of Pallippuram Village, Alappuzha District, within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar Office, Panavally. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Saneesha M.S and Ors. [2024 SCC online Ker 5233] wherein, it was held as follows:
"10. The question is what is the remedy then available for a third party who is aggrieved by an order of attachment. So long as the order is not enforced, the same is not self workable. If it is enforced through a civil court, necessarily, the third party, who is aggrieved can raise his objection against the enforcement or even after the enforcement, the third party can very well raise an objection as against the enforcement by claiming that the property belongs to him. The Code of Civil Procedure provides necessary mechanism for the third party to raise a claim or title over the property. We are of the view that the writ petitioner
-Saneesha M S, is not deprived of any remedy as the Code of Civil Procedure safeguard such interest of the third parties. The law is very clear that the tribunal cannot exercise sovereign function of enforcement and such power is vested with civil court. Therefore, writ petitioner - Saneesha M S can very well resist the enforcement or can raise a claim before the civil court when an order is sought to be enforced. So long as it is not enforced, no right of the writ petitioner - Saneesha M S is WP(C) NO. 46743 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:97803 deprived of to enjoy the property in accordance with law, if the writ petitioner - Saneesha M S is the real owner of the property. As we noted earlier, we have not decided the maintainability of such challenge in appeal before civil court under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. That will have to be worked out independently as it is not for us to observe whether such appeal is maintainable or not in this proceedings. 11. On conclusion, we are of the view that the arbitral tribunal usurped the power of civil court by directly intimating the order of attachment to the Sub Registrar and the Village Officer. That direction will have to be nullified. Accordingly, we nullify the direction. The Sub Registrar or any revenue officials is not bound by any orders passed by the arbitral tribunal unless such an order is enforced through the civil court. We make it clear that the Sub Registrar or any revenue officials shall not act on the direct intimation of the arbitral tribunal regarding attachment unless and until it is enforced through a civil court. We direct the learned Government Pleader to communicate this order by directing the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and Finance Department to intimate all registrar as well as the revenue authorities not to record attachment order which is directly communicated by the arbitral tribunal unless and until it is communicated through the civil court by an order. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment to the extent it interferes with the order of attachment. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of as above."
The relief sought in the writ petition is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Shriram Transport Finance (supra).
Therefore, it is found that the endorsement in respect of the attachment made by the Sub Registrar, upon the intimation of the Arbitrator, in the WP(C) NO. 46743 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:97803 registration certificate and revenue records is without authority. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of, and the entry made in respect of the attachment made by the Arbitrator is nullified and the 1st respondent is directed to delete the entry of attachment made therein.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE
RMV
WP(C) NO. 46743 OF 2025
7
2025:KER:97803
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 46743 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 1/2023 IN
ARB. REF. NO. 538 OF 2023, DATED 08.12.2023
ISSUED BY THE ARBITRATOR
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 30.12.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NO DUE CERTIFICATE DATED
05.10.2025