ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, disposing of W.P.(C)No.14455/2013 filed by the appellant.
2. The facts of the case are that in 1997, mortgaging her property having an extent of 41 cents, the appellant availed of an overdraft facility of ₹1 lakh from the respondent-Bank and the purpose of the facility was for pineapple business. Default was committed and in 2005, the Bank obtained an award for an amount of ₹3,37,749/- with interest thereon. Still, the amount was not paid and finally the mortgaged property was auctioned on 19.1.2006, when in the absence of any bidders, the Bank itself purchased it.
3. Subsequently, the appellant moved the Kerala State Debt Relief Commission, which by Exhibit P3 order dated 24.1.2008 granted relief of ₹70,000/- and directed that the appellant shall pay ₹3,80,000/- to the Bank in settlement of her liability. According to the appellant, immediately thereafter she submitted Exhibit P4 representation dated 28.2.2008 to the Bank, offering to make payment of the balance amount due. It is stated that in the General Body Meeting held on 14.2.2009, the General Body also passed Exhibit P6(2) resolution, resolving to reconvey the property to the appellant, subject to obtaining permission of the Joint Registrar as required under Rule 54(2) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules. This was subject to the condition that the appellant shall pay the entire amount due together with interest and expenses. The Board of Directors of the Bank had also passed a resolution on 28.2.2009 resolving to reconvey the property, subject to the aforesaid conditions.
4. In the meanwhile, on 9.7.2009, the Bank also received ₹70,000/- from the Government, in terms of Exhibit P3 order passed by the Debt Relief Commission. However, the Joint Registrar declined permission sought for by the Bank by his communication dated 12.11.2009. Even thereafter, though the appellant made representations, the property was not reconveyed and it was in such circumstances, the Writ Petition was filed.
5. The judgment under appeal shows that the learned Single Judge declined jurisdiction mainly on the ground that the claim of the appellant for reconveyance of the property was belated and ordered that the Bank shall refund ₹70,000/-
received by it on 9.7.2009 with interest thereon to the appellant. It is this judgment, which is under challenge before us.
6. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
7. The fact that the appellant had mortgaged 41 cents of land, her only property, availed loan, committed default, which resulted in auction of the property which was confirmed in favour of the bank are not in dispute. It is also true that the Bank on its own could not have reconveyed the property, despite the resolution passed by it, without obtaining the permission of the Joint Registrar as required under Rule 54(2) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules. We are also aware of the fact that the Joint Registrar by his communication dated 12.11.2009 declined the permission sought for.
8. Despite the technicalities, this is a case where the appellant had, for reasons beyond her control, committed default, which led to the auction sale in question. The Bank itself was willing to reconvey the property, as is evident from its own resolutions. However, reconveyance did not materialise, only on account of the fact that the Joint Registrar stood in the way, by declining permission sought for by the Bank.
9. The 3rd respondent is a Co-operative Bank, formed for the benefit of its members. When the property of a member like the appellant has been purchased by the Bank on account of the absence of any other bidder, even if it is at a later point of time, the member is willing to discharge the liability with interest and expenses, we see no reason why the Joint Registrar should not have allowed the Bank to proceed with its resolutions to reconvey the property.
10. In such circumstances, we direct that, as resolved by it, the Bank should reconvey the property, mortgaged by the appellant and purchased by it, in favour of the appellant, subject to the condition that the appellant shall remit the entire amount due to the Bank in terms of Exhibit P3 order passed by the Debt Relief Commission together with interest thereon at the prevailing lending rates and on payment of the expenses incurred by the Bank in executing the document in its favour. We also direct that on production of a copy of this judgment, the Bank will quantify the amount that is due to it from the appellant, in terms of this judgment and on being informed of the same, the appellant shall remit the entire amount due within four weeks thereafter. On remittance of the amount as above, the property will be reconveyed to the appellant at any rate, within four weeks thereafter.
The appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, dsn JUDGE