Kerala High Court
Sajeena F vs The Racpc-Ii ,State Bank Of India Sbi on 11 August, 2021
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 16259 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SAJEENA F., AGED 45 YEARS
W/O.MUHAMMED SATHEEK, BUILDING NO.VMC XIII/128A,
NEAR MANNIA ARABIC COLLEGE JN., MUTTAPPALAM P.O.,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 145.
BY ADV A.B.MOHANAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE RACPC-II ,STATE BANK OF INDIA SBI
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033
REP. BY AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER.
2 STATE BANK OF INDIA
CHENTHITTA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PIN -695 001.
SRI. P.GOPAL -SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 16259/21
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court conceding that she is neither the borrower nor guarantor of a loan facility, towards security for which the property in question has been mortgaged. She, however, asserts that she was the original owner of the property and that she sold it to a certain Sri.Edgar Tomy Moraes, who had then availed the loan facility from the 2nd respondent- Bank and asserts that she has been continuing in the said property as a lessee. She says that she is now willing to pay off the entire loan liability to the Bank and prays that she be directed to be given 15 monthly instalments to do so.
2. The afore submissions of the petitioner, as made by her learned counsel - Sri.A.B.Mohana Kumar, was opposed by Sri.P.Gopal - learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank, saying WPC 16259/21 3 that the petitioner cannot maintain this Writ Petition since she admits to be neither a borrower nor a guarantor. He further submitted that, even though Ext.P1 notice for possession has been issued by the Bank, it has now been brought to their notice that there are various other liabilities created by the original borrower and he says that many of them are suspicious. He added to his submissions by pointing out that, in spite of the best effort taken by the Bank to contact the original borrower or guarantor, they have not turned up and that their addresses appear to have been abandoned by them.
3. After saying as afore, the learned Standing Counsel also submitted that, in fact, there is one another reason why the petitioner cannot be given relief in this Writ Petition, namely, that she herself has obtained an order of attachment over the property in question, on the strength of certain alleged transactions with the WPC 16259/21 4 principal borrower and that all these lead to fortify the suspicion of the Bank that she has not approached this Court with clean hands.
4. In reply, Sri.A.B.Mohana Kumar submitted that he has no information whether his client has obtained any attachment over the property in question, but submitted that even if so, she will not pursue it as against the Bank, if this Court grants her liberty to pay off the entire loan amount in a few instalments.
5. Taking note of the afore submissions and since the petitioner has now come forward to pay the entire loan liability and because she says that she is in possession of the property, I deem it appropriate to grant her a limited relief in this Writ Petition; however, without recognising any legal right in her favour as a lessee or otherwise, but solely as a matter of indulgence.
Resultantly, I direct the petitioner to pay off the entire loan amount due to the Bank, along WPC 16259/21 5 with all applicable charges and interest, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and if this is done, then the Bank will close the loan account and release the title documents to the mortgagor as per its records.
Needless to say, if the petitioner defaults payments as ordered above, she will surrender vacant possession of the property to the Bank - as has been expressly agreed to by her learned counsel, Sri.A.B.Mohana Kumar - without demur; and the Bank will be, thereafter, at liberty to take further action against it, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act.
Needless to say, the Bank is permitted to take symbolic possession of the property as per Ext.P6, but physical possession will be deferred in terms of my observations above.
Should any further clarification be required WPC 16259/21 6 by the Bank for any reason, including as regards the attachment allegedly obtained by the petitioner against the secured asset, they will be at liberty to approach this Court with an appropriate application; which shall then be listed before this Court by the Registry appropriately.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 16259/21
7
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16259/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED
02/08/2021 ISSUED UPON PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.