DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

1. The petitioner is said to be the owner of an immovable property to an extent of 2.5 cents having purchased the same through Exhibit P1 sale deed from none other than his father, the additional eighth respondent. In this writ petition, the petitioner assails the first respondent Bank's efforts to bring the petitioner's property to sale for the realisation of the amounts owed by the additional eighth respondent, the erstwhile owner.

2. As the record reveals, the additional eighth respondent, while working as an Attendar in the respondent Bank, faced a serious charge of misappropriation; it has led to his dismissal from service. For the recovery of the misappropriated amount, the respondent Bank filed A.R.C. No. 968/1999 and obtained an award dated 10.12.2003 against the additional eighth respondent. At the inception, the respondent Bank also had the property attached through Exhibit R1(f) order dated 19.01.2000 passed by the Joint Registrar.

3. On the strength of the award obtained by the respondent Bank, when it issued Exhibit P13 sale notice; the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the additional eighth respondent purchased an extent of two cents of land through Exhibit P15 registered sale deed dated 17.04.1980; later, on 03.01.1992 through Exhibit P16, another registered sale deed, he purchased an extent of 3.50 cents from the same vendor. According to the learned counsel, the additional eighth respondent is, therefore, the owner of 5.50 cents of immovable property.

5. The learned counsel has also submitted that initially the additional eighth respondent mortgaged the entire extent of land and obtained a housing loan from the Kerala State Housing Board. In the course of time, having cleared the loan, he got the property released by the Housing Board through Exhibit P2 release deed. The petitioner, through Exhibit P1 dated 30.12.2005, contends the learned counsel, purchased an extent of 2.5 cents, on which a residential house also stands.

6. Under the above factual backdrop, the learned counsel has strenuously contended that if at all the respondent Bank wants to realise the award amount, it should proceed against the balance extent of land : three cents.

7. In further elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel has contended that while purchasing the land, the petitioner did take every precaution including that of obtaining an encumbrance certificate from the registrar's office to ensure that the property had not been encumbered or distrained. He has also contended that after having the attachment through Exhibit R1(f) order, the respondent Bank ought to have communicated it to the registering authorities, apart from notifying the same in a conspicuous place with a view to disseminating the information as regards the order of attachment. He has also submitted that even the revenue records did not reveal the factum of attachment.

8. In sum and substance, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser without having any knowledge as regards any possible defect in the title of the additional eighth respondent and that the petitioner's property cannot be brought for sale.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on the other hand, has submitted that, as could be seen from Exhibit R1(b), the revenue record abstract obtained by the respondent Bank, the additional eighth respondent has got the title only to an extent of 2.5 cents. According to him, the rest of the land may have been under his occupation, but without any valid title.

10. Concerning the mortgage of the entire property and later its release through Exhibit P2 by the Housing Board, the learned counsel would contend that the act of the Housing Board in accepting the whole property under mortgage, though it did not belong to the additional eighth respondent, does not bind the respondent Bank.

11. The learned counsel has