The petitioner is aggrieved with the refusal to re-convey the property purchased in auction. Admittedly, the petitioner availed of a loan from the 1st respondent Bank. On default being committed, petitioner was proceeded against under Section 69 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 and an Award passed. The property, according to the respondent Bank, being 24.75 cents was brought to sale in auction held on 29.10.2003. The upset price fixed was Rs.10,30,457/-. Auction was conducted and there were no bidders. Hence the upset price was reduced to Rs.7,51,000/- and at the 3rd instance, the Bank purchased the property. 2. The petitioner was before this Court seeking re-conveyance of the property after three years from the date of sale. The Bank, at that point of time submitted that, if the petitioner remits the entire amounts due and expenses incurred by the Bank, the Bank was ready to re-convey the property. This Court hence, directed a representation to be moved before the Bank and also directed the respondent Bank to take a decision as to any reduction which can be effected, and re- convey the property to the petitioner on payment of the amounts demanded. The exact amount payable by the petitioner was also directed to be intimated to the petitioner. The amount so intimated by the respondent Bank, was directed to be paid in five equal monthly instalments, the 1st of which was payable on or before 01.10.2007. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by judgment dated 17.08.2007.
3. The respondent Bank in compliance of the direction, issued Ext.R1(a) dated 28.09.2007. Petitioner does not dispute receipt of Ext.R2(a) notice. As per the decision of the Bank, an amount of Rs.7,51,000/- for which the property was purchased in auction and the expenses incurred coming to Rs.46,190/-, was to be re-paid with 14% interest, from the date of auction. With respect to the balance outstanding in the loan account, an amount of Rs.2,79,457/- was also directed to be paid with interest from the auction date being 29.10.2003 at the rate of 15% as against the rate of 20% agreed upon in the loan account. Hence, the Bank had effectively complied with the directions and granted 5% reduction in the interest payable by the petitioner on the balance amount remaining due in the loan account.
4. Ext.R2(a) was dated 28.09.2007. Even as per Ext.P1, the instalments had to start from 01.10.2007 and had to be completed in five equal monthly instalments. Admittedly, petitioner has paid only Rs.7,60,000/-; and failed to comply fully with the directions in Ext.P1 judgment. The matter rested there. Nothing was done by the petitioner in the intervening period. The writ petition was moved in the year 2013, after six years, on the petitioner being again intimated by the Bank by Ext.P5 that, on payment of Rs.19,62,664/- the Bank is ready to re- convey the property.
5. The petitioner immediately approached this Court with the above writ petition without paying the amount and challenging the direction in Ext.P5. The contention of the petitioner was that, the amounts demanded as per Ext.P5 were astronomically high and that the Bank ought to have only asked for the amounts due in the loan account with interest as agreed upon. In fact, such an order was obtained by the petitioner in Ext.P1 and the respondent Bank had also granted certain reliefs as to the interest by Ext.R1(a). That was not complied with by the petitioner. The Bank, as a matter of indulgence, directed payment of an amount of Rs.19,62,264/- for re-conveyance of the property as per Ext.P5. The petitioner chose not to avail of such remedy which is granted after the expiry of almost six years, from the non compliance of Ext.P1 judgment. The petitioner chose to challenge the same which challenge is found to be not sustainable on the facts disclosed in the above case. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank also asserts that at this point of time, the Bank is not ready to re-convey the property. The challenge against Ext.P5 is not sustainable. The Bank's contention that having not paid the amounts in Ext.P5, at the time it was offered, now the petitioner cannot claim such benefit. The petitioner will have to suffer the consequences of the challenge made.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. It is made clear that the balance amount on the partial deposit made in pursuance to Ext.P1, remaining after settlement of the loan account, will be refunded to the petitioner within two months from today.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//