Kerala High Court
S. Suresh vs The Manager, The Kerala State Financial ... on 30 May, 2002
Equivalent citations: AIR2003KER24, AIR 2003 KERALA 24
Author: K.A. Abdul Gafoor
Bench: K.A. Abdul Gafoor
ORDER K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
1. Second respondent is a limited company, of course, owned by the Government and the first respondent is an officer. The company is engaged in the conduct of chitties and business of finance. The petitioner subscribed to one among the chit-ties conducted by the second, respondent on the basis of "variyola". The chitty amount shall be distributed to the petitioner on reasonable security. This is a contract statutorily entered into in terms of the chitty variyola by the subscriber, the petitioner and the foreman, the first respondent. It is an admitted fact that the chitty had been prized in favour of the petitioner. Therefore the respondents are liable to pay the prize amount on the petitioner providing reasonable security for ensuring payment of the future subscription of the chitty. The petitioner intended to provide security of his immovable property. To show that he owns the property, he produced a certified copy of the title deed. The title deed in original was not produced. The certified copy of the title deed is not accepted as a reasonable security by the respondents. So, the prize amount is not disbursed. The petitioner showed preparedness for equitable mortgage of the property. The first respondent is not amenable to accept it as a reasonable security for the amount to be advanced. It is in the above circumstance, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to release the prize amount forthwith with interest.
2. When there is a statutory contract if there is violation by one among the parties thereto, the other party can approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce the contract. The petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Goel, 2001 (2) SCC 160 : (AIR 2001 SC 549) and a Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Anil, (2002) 1 Ker LT 371 : (AIR 2002 Ker 160). Therefore, this writ petition is maintainable for enforcement of that statutory contract and to direct the other party to perform their part in terms of that contract, the petitioner submits.
3. Certainly that is the forceful contention. The statutory contract disclosed by the variyola is that one should provide reasonable security. But whether the security provided is reasonable or not is not within the purview of the statutory contract. That is within the purview of self-satisfaction of the creditor. Admittedly, what the petitioner produced before the first respondent is only a certified copy of the title deed. As per the Transfer of Property Act, equitable mortgage is by depositing the original title deed of the property. In such circumstances, if a creditor is not acting based on a certified copy of the document, necessarily that creditor cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court or the decision of the Full Bench of this Court does not have direct application to direct the first respondent to accept the security offered by the petitioner as sufficient, when the first respondent does not have a conviction or satisfaction that it is reasonable. In the matter of payment of money, this Court will not direct one to pay money on whatever security offered by the other. Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be extended to that much. Original petition fails, dismissed.