C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

1. Appellants, both husband and wife, borrowed Rs. 15,000/- nearly 30 years back from State Bank of Travancore, Chalai Branch. On default in payment, the Bank filed civil suit and obtained a money decree against appellants for Rs. 19,500/-. The mortgaged property was notified for sale on 06/08/1990 and since there was no purchaser, the Bank itself purchased the property with the permission of the Court. The Bank in fact got delivery of the possession of the property only on 24/06/1996. The Bank let out the building and collected rent of Rs. 1,41,600/-. Even though the rent collected by itself may absorb the entire decree amount and future interest, the Bank sold Appellant's property purchased by them on 10/07/2001 for Rs. 10,10,001/-.

2. On coming to know about the sale of the property and the huge profit made by the Bank, the appellants in terrible unfortunate conditions approached this Court with the writ petition for a direction to the Bank to pay the differential amount to the appellants. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition against which this writ appeal is filed.

3. After hearing the appellants counsel and Sri. R.S. Kalkura, Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank, we are satisfied that the Bank obtained clear title over the property which it purchased in execution proceedings with permission of the Court and so much so the Bank had every right to sell the property and the sale made by it is beyond challenge. However, we feel the writ jurisdiction of this Court stretches beyond just declaring the above position in law and it should consider the claim on considerations of fair play, equity and reasonableness.

4. The total recovery towards rent and sale consideration will come to an amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- where as the decree amount though in 1984 was only for Rs. 19,500/- with future interest at the rate of 13.5%. Even if interest is added up for the last 25 years, still the amount collected by the Bank through rent and by the sale of the appellants' property is multiplies of their claim.

5. Appellants' counsel explained the terrible conditions in the family of the appellants in as much as the wife of the first appellant was paralysed on account of Meninjities. Of the two children, the appellants have, the daughter is mentally retarded and the son, a psychiatric patient. The whole family is in miserable financial plight.

6. We are convinced that if the appellants had approached this Court when the sale was made by the Execution Court to the Bank, the appellant would have been given an opportunity to sell the mortgaged property by themselves and settle the arrears and get the differential amount. Even if notional market value was fixed on date of sale and credited in loan account still appellants would have got the differential amount as the decree amount with future interest would have been much less than the market value of property. State Bank of Travancore is a reputed public sector Bank which has its' main operations within Kerala and it has Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as well. Most of the public limited companies including the public sector undertakings are required by Central Government to evolve policies to make them CSR-Compliance and some of the Banks have started CSR-Departments for evolving policies of social responsibility for making commitments. Being a public sector bank sponsored by the State, SBT is obliged to be socially committed even in their business activities. This Court has also taken the view that the financial institutions engaged in money lending is not supposed to engage in real estate business and make profit by purchase and sale of defaulters' property. If decree can be discharged in instalments through recovery of rent from the mortgaged property, the Court should permit it instead of allowing sale of property of defaulter who is disabled from selling it because of tenancies. In fairness we therefore feel the Managing Director of the Bank