This writ petition throws open the issue whether a subsequent purchaser has a right to subrogate by redeeming the mortgaged property if his vendor defaults--so that he could save the property. The corollary to that issue is whether a writ petition can be taken recourse to for that purpose.

2. The petitioner is one of the seven persons, who purchased a piece of immovable property through Ext.P1 registered sale deed from the 5th respondent. The purchase was in the year 2007. Soon thereafter, the purchasers came across Ext.P2 notice issued by the third respondent Bank proposing to sell the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed in the execution of an award it had obtained against the 5th respondent, the borrower and original title holder. Complaining that the respondent Bank is not allowing them to redeem the property and not returning the original title deeds, one of the purchasers has filed the writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and other purchasers initially did not know about the encumbrance of the property. He has further submitted that now the vendor, the 5th respondent, has no subsisting interest in the property.

4. The learned counsel has also contended that as the petitioner is an interested person, he has the locus to seek the redemption of the property. He contends that, in terms of Sections 60, 83 and 91 of the Transfer of Property Act, the petitioner has every right to redeem the property and have the documents returned to him.

5. Faced with a specific query whether one co-owner could sue for the redemption of the property or the return of the documents, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to paragraph 3 of the writ petition. The pleading is that the other co-purchasers of the property were not available "at present"--at the time of the petitioner's filing the writ petition--to join him to sue.

6. The learned counsel has contended that the petitioner filed the writ petition not only on his behalf but also on behalf of the other co-purchasers under their authorisation. The learned counsel has further drawn my attention to the reliefs sought in the writ petition to hammer home his contention that the outcome should enure to the benefit of all the co-owners.

7. Shri Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on the other hand, has strenuously contested the petitioner's claims. To begin with, he has submitted that the writ petition is not in a representative capacity; that is, it is not for and on behalf of the other co-owners. A person who represents just 1/7th part of interest in the property alone has come before this court; he has no absolute right of redemption.

8. The learned counsel has further contended that in Ext.P1 sale deed, there is a specific recital that the original title deeds had been handed over to the purchasers at the time of execution of Ext.P1. The said recital ex facie is incorrect. According to him, the very Ext.P1 sale deed further records that by the time of sale, two civil suits were pending against that property: O.S. Nos. 450 of 2011 and 457 of 2011 before Sub-Court, Palakkad. Thus contends the learned counsel that the petitioner and the other co-owners purchased the property lis pendens. To this day, the fate of those two suits referred to in Ext.P1, according to the learned counsel, is not known.

9. The learned counsel has strenuously contended, first, that there is no privity of contract between the subsequent purchasers of the mortgaged property and the respondent Bank. He has, second, also contended that since the Bank has contracted with the 5th respondent, absent any valid authorisation or consent letter from the said person, the respondent Bank cannot be compelled to return the documents to the petitioner. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to Section 60A of the Act. According to the learned counsel, any such precipitous step of returning the documents would further entangle the Bank in needless lit