High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
SOMAN, S/O,ONAKKATTIL CHELLAPPAN ACHARI v. LORD KRISHNA BANK LIMITED - WP(C) No. 15366 of 2005(D)  RD-KL 14940 (3 August 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 15366 of 2005(D)
1. SOMAN, S/O,ONAKKATTIL CHELLAPPAN ACHARI,
1. LORD KRISHNA BANK LIMITED,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.SREEJITH
For Respondent :SRI.B.JAYASANKAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J........................................................... W.P.(C)No.15366 OF 2005 ...........................................................
DATED THIS THE 3RD AUGUST, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner filed an application Ext.P1 for cancellation of the sale certificate on the reason that after the confirmation of sale and issuance of the sale certificate but before delivery was taken by the certificate holder on the strength of the sale certificate, the entire amount due to the respondent-bank, inclusive of the expenses incurred for the sale certificate, was paid by the petitioner to the bank. The Bank did not have any objection in the matter of allowing the application. The court below however dismissed the application taking the view that there is no provision for cancelling the sale certificate and that the proper course will be to take a re-conveyance of the property. The petitioner challenges the order of the court below in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227.
2. Not that I do not find at least technical merit in the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge, but the learned Judge should have noticed that notwithstanding the sale certificate, possession of the property continued with the petitioner and the respondent-bank was yet to take possession on the strength of the sale certificate by filing an application under Rule 95 of Order XXI C.P.C. To that extent WP(C)N0.15366/05 it can be said that the title acquired by the decree-holder by virtue of the sale certificate had not become perfect, since the same is not followed by possession. Even otherwise, on considerations of justice and on the consideration that the court has got a duty to avoid unnecessary financial burden for litigating parties, I invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and set aside the impugned order and allow E.A.No.611 of 2005. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)tgl WP(C)N0.15366/05
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.