The petitioner is the purchaser of a property from the 5th respondent. A mortgage was created on the property of the 5th respondent, by the 5th respondent himself as against a loan availed by respondents 3 and 4, from the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent on default being committed, filed two A.R.Cs numbered as A.R.C. Nos. 1385 of 2009 and 1386 of 2009 before the Arbitrator. The petitioner, before this Court contended that, the agreement of sale was prior to the mortgage and hence, he had a better right. No title having been created before the mortgage, the petitioner cannot raise such contention. 2. In such circumstance, the mortgage cannot be found to be defective nor the petitioner's title be deemed to be better than that of the mortgagee. In any W.P.(C) No.1562 of 2010 - U 2 circumstance, if the petitioner's grievance could only be against the 5th respondent, who had sold the property after entering into an agreement of sale and before executing the sale deed, created a mortgage. That could be proceeded with, before the appropriate forum. The Bank cannot be interdicted in proceeding against the respondents 3 to 5 as also the mortgaged property.
The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // True Copy // P.A To Judge.