The petitioner has come up before this Court as the respondent has affixed an attachment notice on her house indicating the fact that one Vincy Joseph was liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,09,157/- to the respondent society and the same would be charged on the petitioner's property as the said property was pledged with the respondent society for availing the said amount by the aforesaid Vincy Joseph. 2. The petitioner alleges that she is in absolute enjoyment and possession of the property in Re.Sy.No.949 of Kaniyarkode Village of Thrissur District as per Settlement Deed No.1507/I/2011 of Pazhayannur Sub Registry. It was purchased by her husband from one Unnikrishnan as per Document No.2016/1/2010 of Pazhayannur Sub Registry. According to the petitioner, she is in possession of the said property. She alleges that she had never availed any loan from the respondent at any point of time pledging her property. She would also allege that the encumbrance certificate of the said property for the period ranging from 1995 to 2012 shows no encumbrance on the said property. Therefore, she challenges the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent against her property.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it was contended that the encumbrance certificate procured by the petitioner is not a reliable document as it does not contain all transactions from the year 1995 to 2012. However, according to them, copies of the encumbrance certificate available at their office shows that the property has been pledged to the respondent Board by Vincy Joseph who had availed a loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the respondent Housing Board.
According to the respondent, the loan was sanctioned to the said Vincy Joseph after verifying the documents. The said Vincy Joseph availed a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from the respondent Board and the loan is in arrears since 1996. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondent Board has the first charge on the property ever since the execution of the mortgage deed and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
4. Arguments have been heard.
5. Evidently, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the property which originally belonged to one Vincy Joseph who, according to the respondent, had availed Rs.2 lakhs from the respondent Board. Ext.R1(a) is the copy of the sale deed executed by Joseph Mathew,who is none other than the husband of Vincy Joseph which would show that the said Vincy was the owner of the property. She executed the mortgage deed No.2627/1996 with respect to the aforesaid property. A copy of the same is produced and marked as Ext.R1(f) by the respondent. More over, the original of the sale deed was also deposited with the Housing Board to create an equitable mortgage.
6. The stand taken by the petitioner is that Ext.P3 which is the encumbrance certificate for the relevant period does not reflect the execution of Ext.R1(f) mortgage deed. That would indicate that some fraud was perpetuated by the officials who issued Ext.P3 or by the person from whom the petitioner purchased the property. Ext.R1(b) encumbrance certificate produced by the respondents reflects the execution of ExtR1(f). Though the petitioner alleges that she has effected the mutation of the property, it is only for the fiscal purpose and the same will not invalidate the charge created by Ext.R1(f) mortgage. No explanation is forthcoming from the petitioner as to why they did not insist for the verification of the original of the prior title deeds which are still in custody of the respondent Board.
7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that the property has come into the hands of the petitioner through so many hands, that is not a valid justification for not verifying the previous title deeds. It is crucial to note that Ext.P3 encumbrance certificate which is projected as the gospel of truth by the petitioner, does not contain the details of registration of deed No.2016/1/2010 which is the immediate deed prior to Ext.P1 in the name of the petitioner.
8. On a consideration of the entire materials now placed on record, this Court is of the definite view that the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.
It will be open to the respondent Board to proceed with the recovery action against the property in question.
If the petitioner suffers any damage on account of any illegality committed by any of his predecessors in interest in the property or officials of the State, it shall be open to the petitioner to get his grievance redressed through a competent forum.
Sd/-A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE