Chitambaresh, J.

1.The regular second appeal comes before us on a reference made by the learned single Judge doubting the correctness of the decision in KHDFC Bank Ltd. and others v. Prestige Educational Trust [ILR 2015 (4) Kerala 938].

2. The suit in O.S.No.262/2016 is one for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing or otherwise taking possession of the plaint A schedule property. The plaintiffs assert that the secured asset under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ['SARFAESI Act'] is the plaint B schedule. An attempt to take possession of the plaint A schedule property over which no security interest has been created is the cause of action alleged. It is averred that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the plaint A schedule property which lies adjacent to the plaint B schedule property. The defendants are the Bank who is the secured creditor, its General Manager and its authorised officer who have taken measures under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

3. A preliminary objection was raised by the defendants as regards the maintainability of the suit by filing I.A.No.2344/2016 on the ground that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The trial court allowed I.A.No.2344/2016 and dismissed the suit as not maintainable thereby also dismissing I.A.No.2305/2016 filed for injunction. The lower appellate court in A.S.No.16/2017 has concurred with the view of the trial court about the maintainability of the suit and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs are in regular second appeal contending that the suit is very much maintainable since relief is sought not in respect of a secured asset. The appellants rely on the decision in KHDFC Bank Ltd.'s case (supra) to contend that the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act does not apply. The respondents on the other hand point out that the afore-cited decision is no longer good law in view of Jagdish Singh v. Heeralal and others [AIR 2014 SC 371].

4. We heard Mr. Chandrasekhar G., Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Mr.Varghese Kuriakose, Advocate on behalf of the respondents. The local inspection report filed by Mr.K.Rajesh Kannan, Advocate was also perused.

5. Section 2(1)(zc) of the SARFAESI Act defines 'secured asset' as follows :

“(zc) 'Secured asset' means the property on which security interest is created.” Section 2(1)(zd) of the SARFAESI Act defines 'secured creditor' as follows:

“(zd) 'Secured creditor' means

(i) any bank or financial institution or any consortium or group of banks or financial institutions holding any right, title or interest upon any tangible asset or intangible asset as specified in clause (l);

(ii) debenture trustee appointed by any bank or financial institution; or

(iii) an asset reconstruction company whether acting as such or managing a trust set up by such asset reconstruction company for the securitisation or reconstruction, as the case may be; or

(iv) debenture trustee registered with the Board appointed by any company for secured debt securities; or

(v) any other trustee holding securities on behalf of a bank or financial institution, in whose favour security interest is created by any borrower for due repayment of any financial assistance;”

Section 2(1)(zf) of the SARFAESI Act defines 'security interest' as follows:

“(zf) 'Security interest' means right, title or interest of any kind, other than those specified in section 31, upon property created in favour of any secured creditor and includes-

(i) any mortgage, charge, hypothecation, assignment or any right, title or interest of any kind, on tangible asset, retained by the secured creditor as an owner of the property, given on hire or financial lease or conditional sale or under any other contract which secures the obligation to pay any unpaid portion of the purchase price of the asset or an obligation incurred or credit provided to enable the borrower to a