Full Judgment
WP(C) NO. 9678 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 9678 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: SUHAS R., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. RAJAPPAN, RESIDING AT SURJITH NIVAS, KANJIRAMATTAM P.O., AMBALLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY ANIL GEORGE RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682312. 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALAGAPPA NAGAR, KANJOOR, AMBALLUR, ERNAKULAM- 680302. 3 THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM- 682314. 4 MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, PADAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. BIJURAJ U., PIN-682037. SMT K AMMINIKUTTY, SR GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 9678 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 2 Ares and 13 sq. mts. falling in Old Sy. No. 514/6 (Re-Sy. No. 572/14-2) of Amballur Village. The said property was acquired by him on the cover of sale deed No. 1510/1992 of the Mulanthuruthi SRO.
2. According to the petitioner, in the year 2008, arbitration
proceedings were initiated for realizing the loan amount due to the 4th respondent. An application for attachment of the property referred to above was filed before the District Court, Ernakulam by the 4th respondent and by Ext.P1 order, the property was attached. Ext.P1 order would reveal that the petition was allowed by the 1st Additional District Judge and it was ordered that the attachment effected will be made absolute for a period of one year within which time, the arbitration proceedings were to be completed. The petitioner states that the entire dues were settled by the petitioner with the 4th respondent and Ext.P4 receipt was issued. At any rate, it is contended that the order of attachment was valid only for a period of one year from 4.2.2009 and the said period has long expired. It is contended that when 2nd respondent refused to accept basic tax, the petitioner approached this Court and by Ext.P2 judgment, this Court directed the said respondent to accept basic tax. His grievance is that when tax receipt was issued, an
WP(C) NO. 9678 OF 2021 3 endorsement has been made that the property is the subject matter of an attachment in Arbitration O.P.No.1195/2008. Ext.P3 is the receipt so issued. It is further contended that though the petitioner had fully and effectively settled all the disputes, in the encumbrance certificate issued by the 3rd respondent, the attachment is noted. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following directions.
i). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to remove the
endorsement of Attachment Order in Arb.O.P.No.1195/2008 and thereafter to issue receipts for the Basic Tax. ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent to incorporate
necessary entries in the Register lifting the attachment w.e.f 03.02.2009 and thereafter issue encumbrance showing the same to the petitioner.
3. Notice was issued to the 4th respondent and the same was served. However, none appears.
4. I have heard Sri. Joby Jacob, Pulickakudi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
5. Ext.P1 order of the District Court, Ernakulam clearly reveals that
the attachment order was effective only for a period of one year from 4.2.2009. The said date has long expired. Furthermore, Ext.P4 receipt would reveal that the petitioner has remitted a total sum of Rs.2,25,000/- with the 4th respondent. The said fact remains undisputed. In that view of the matter, there is no justification in marking the endorsement of attachment WP(C) NO. 9678 OF 2021 4 effected in Arbitration O.P. No. 1195/2008 in the tax receipt or in the encumbrance certificate. In view of the discussion above, the petitioner is entitled to the relief
sought for in this writ petition. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to remove the endorsements with respect to the attachment order effected in Arbitration O.P.No.1195/2008 and issue receipts evidencing the acceptance of basic tax. The 3rd respondent is directed to efface the attachment noted in the encumbrance certificate with effect from 3.2.2009 and issue fresh encumbrance certificate to the petitioner on usual terms. The needful shall be done by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment along with the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for further action. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE ps WP(C) NO. 9678 OF 2021 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9678/2021 PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 04/02/2009 IN ARB. OP NO. 1195/2008 ON THE FILES OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED HONOURABLE COURT. Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED OFFICER. Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RECEIPT DATED ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 03/07/2020 FROM 01/01/1992 TO RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL