The petitioner is aggrieved with the confirmation of sale, granted in the name of the respondent Bank, by Ext.P5. Admittedly, the petitioner had availed of a loan from the 5th respondent bank, mortgaging his residential property. An award was obtained by the respondent Bank, on default committed by the petitioner. Execution proceedings were taken up, in which the petitioner also participated. The petitioner specifically filed an application before the Arbitrator as E.P 331/05, produced herein as Ext.P3, contending that the 10 cents of property, would be valued at more than Rs.7,00,000/- and the total dues in the account is only Rs.1,42,963/-. The petitioner hence, prayed for a division of the property and sale of 3 cents, which could, in fact, fetch the amount due in the loan account. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that, the dues at the time of sale was more than that indicated in Ext.P3. On a valuation undertaken by the Arbitrator, the property was valued at 2,42,000/-by the Village Officer. That was indicated as the upset price and the property was brought to sale. The Bank purchased the property for an amount of Rs.2,45,000/-, which was confirmed by Ext.P10. In such circumstance, there can be no challenge validly raised against the sale of the property or the confirmation.
3. Even according to the petitioner, the property with a residential building of 10 cents was valued at Rs.7,00,000/-. The upset price of Rs.2,42,000/- fixed for 3 cents of property was far above the valuation indicated by the petitioner himself for the property,that too with a residential building thereon. The sale hence could not be challenged successfully, looking at the valuation of the property; as projected by the petitioner himself.
4. The contention raised in the writ petition is with respect to the computation and credit of payments made, having not been reflected in the account. These are not issues which could be validly considered in a petition under Article 226. Admittedly, the petitioner did not avail of an appellate remedy as provided under the Co-operative Societies Act (Kerala), 1969 to the Tribunal. The petitioner's contention is that the entire property has been purchased for Rs.2,42,000/- which is refuted by the respondent Bank.
5. The respondent Bank fairly submits that only 3 cents of property, as required by the petitioner was sold and purchased by the Bank. The respondent Bank also submits that the Bank is ready to repay the excess amounts, after satisfying the debt due, as on the date of sale.
6. It is also fairly conceded by the respondent Bank that if the petitioner remits the entire amounts with interest up to date, the respondent Bank would not insist for conveyance of the property. Hence if the petitioner pays off the entire amounts with interest as on the date of payment, the statement of which will be given within two weeks from today, the sale shall stand set aside. The respondent Bank shall raise a demand for the amounts due as on 30.12.2014. The excess interest if any paid shall be refunded to the petitioner, if the amounts are paid before the due date. If no payment as directed herein is made, the Bank shall refund the excess amounts as directed in paragraph 5 above.
Writ petition disposed of.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge