V. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Visalakshi and Others

V. Gopalakrishnan vs Visalakshi and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 05, 2015

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1181817

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1181817
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Antony Dominic &Amp; The Honourable Mrs. Justice P.V. Asha
Decided On: Oct 05, 2015
Case Number: R.F.A. No. 23 of 2011
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act Section 69, Section 100 Recovery Proceeding Entitlement to Relief Plaintiff filed suit, seeking recovery of amount from first respondent, his divorced wife Though decree as sought against first respondent was passed, prayer for injunction against respondents 2 and 3 was de...

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V. Gopalakrishnan

Respondent

Visalakshi and Others

Excerpt

kerala co-operative societies act section 69, section 100 recovery proceeding entitlement to relief plaintiff filed suit, seeking recovery of amount from first respondent, his divorced wife though decree as sought against first respondent was passed, prayer for injunction against respondents 2 and 3 was declined. court held section 100 of the act provides that in respect of disputes between bank and its members, jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts stand excluded thus, grievance if any appellant had could have been adjudicated only in proceedings under section 69 of the act therefore, view taken in judgment under appeal that relief sought against te bank could not have been granted by civil court, is absolutely unimpeachable therefore, no interfere with judgment and decree in this appeal required appeal is dismissed. (para: 4) comparative citation: 2015 air(ker) 303, .....for injunction against respondents 2 and 3 was declined. it is aggrieved by this judgment and decree, this appeal is filed. 2. we heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 3. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in march 2000, the first respondent availed of a loan of rs.1,00,000/- from second respondent. the appellant, being the then husband of the first respondent, stood surety to the loan in question and mortgaged one acre of land in r.s.225/1a of kinanoor village in favour of the bank. subsequently, first respondent committed default and to cut a long story short, the bank filed a.r.c. 13/02 which resulted in an award directing the first respondent to pay the amount due to the bank and also creating a charge on the mortgaged property. in the execution petition filed, the appellant sought to be exonerated himself and on the rejection of such an application, writ petition 17697/05 was filed before this court. in that writ petition, judgment was rendered by this court granting an instalment facility to the appellant. after suffering such a judgment, the appellant filed o.s.182/07 in which the impugned judgment and decree was passed. 4. admittedly, section 100 of the kerala co-operative societies act provides that in respect of disputes between the bank and its members, the jurisdiction of the civil and revenue courts stand excluded. consequently, the grievance if any the appellant had could have been adjudicated only in a proceedings under section 69 of the said act. therefore, the view taken in the judgment under appeal that the relief sought against the bank could not have been granted by the civil court, is absolutely unimpeachable. we cannot, therefore, interfere with the judgment and decree in this appeal. 5. be that as it may, even now on behalf of the bank, it is fairly submitted that if the appellant clears the liability that is due, the bank is willing to forego its claim over the mortgaged.....

Full Judgment

Antony Dominic, J.

1. The plaintiff in O.S.182/07 on the file of the Sub Court, Hosdurg is the appellant. He filed the suit, seeking recovery of Rs.15,000/- from the first respondent, his divorced wife. He also sought an order of injunction restraining respondents 2 and 3 from proceeding against one acre of property in R.S.225/1A of Kinanoor village of Hosdurg Taluk. By the decree and judgment impugned in this appeal, though a decree as sought against the first respondent was passed, the prayer for injunction against respondents 2 and 3 was declined. It is aggrieved by this judgment and decree, this appeal is filed.

2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in March 2000, the first respondent availed of a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from second respondent. The appellant, being the then husband of the first respondent, stood surety to the loan in question and mortgaged one acre of land in R.S.225/1A of Kinanoor village in favour of the bank. Subsequently, first respondent committed default and to cut a long story short, the bank filed A.R.C. 13/02 which resulted in an award directing the first respondent to pay the amount due to the bank and also creating a charge on the mortgaged property. In the Execution Petition filed, the appellant sought to be exonerated himself and on the rejection of such an application, Writ Petition 17697/05 was filed before this Court. In that writ petition, judgment was rendered by this Court granting an instalment facility to the appellant. After suffering such a judgment, the appellant filed O.S.182/07 in which the impugned judgment and decree was passed.

4. Admittedly, Section 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act provides that in respect of disputes between the bank and its members, the jurisdiction of the Civil and Revenue Courts stand excluded. Consequently, the grievance if any the appellant had could have been adjudicated only in a proceedings under Section 69 of the said Act. Therefore, the view taken in the judgment under appeal that the relief sought against the bank could not have been granted by the Civil Court, is absolutely unimpeachable. We cannot, therefore, interfere with the judgment and decree in this appeal.

5. Be that as it may, even now on behalf of the bank, it is fairly submitted that if the appellant clears the liability that is due, the bank is willing to forego its claim over the mortgaged property which was purchased by it in the sale that was conducted on 8.12.2005 pursuant to the award in A.R.C.13/02.

6. In such circumstances, we direct that the stay of confirmation as ordered by this Court in this appeal will remain in force for a further period of five months from today. In the meanwhile, it would be open to the appellant to discharge the liability due to the bank either by himself or by his nominee, in which event the bank will release or recover the property to the appellant or his nominee, as the case may be. Needless to say that in case the appellant does not take advantage of the above within five months as allowed by us, the third respondent shall confirm the sale in favour of the bank.

Subject to the above, the appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2015 Same Parties V. Gopalakrishnan vs Visalakshi and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Antony Dominic &Amp; The Honourable Mrs. Justice P.V. Asha

Land Acquisition