Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Kallangodan Moosa, S/o. Late Kunhammed Haji – Appellant
Versus
Sub Registrar – Respondent
Wp(C) No. 3987 of 2022
Decided On : 09-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Priority of Claims
Act Referred
SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT : S.26(e)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
Headnote
Facts of the case:
Petitioners argued that the attachments made by the EPFO and a court were invalid since they were imposed after the mortgage was created. Although the petitioner bank supported their claims, the superior priority of the EPFO was acknowledged given the statutory requirement for provident fund dues.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that EPFO has priority over other creditors concerning the dues. Any attachments from earlier debts ought to be settled before the properties could be affected by claims of the bank.
Issues: Whether the court could order the removal of attachments made by lesser priority creditors, particularly the EPFO, against the claims of a bank holding a mortgage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that since the mortgage was registered after the dues to EPFO became applicable, the bank could not assert priority of claims over that of the EPFO according to the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act 1952.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
For the Appellant : Smt. Gayathri Narendranath Sri. B.G. Bhaskar Smt. Lalitha A.
For the Respondent: Dr. Abraham P. Meachinkara Sri. V.V. Suresh Shri. Mohan Jacob George Smt. P.V. Parvathy, Smt. Reena Thomas Smt. Nigi Georgegp-Nima Jacob
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition seeks mandamus to delete property attachments. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. epf claims dues against property; argues priority and legality. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioners argue property ownership and legality of sales. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. 1st respondent's duty to recognize attachments; procedural steps needed. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. key court findings regarding attachment orders and legal precedent. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. final ruling asserts epf's priority over other debts; petition dismissed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“A. Issue a writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ or order commanding the 1st Respondent to delete/efface the attachments noted in favour of Respondents 2 to 4 in respect of the immovable property having an extent of 0.1781 Hectares (17.81 Ares = 43.99 cents) in Re Survey No.507/20 (Old Sy.No.1/2/2A in Kalpetta Village, Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad District.
B. Pass an order directing the 1st Respondent to issue fresh encumbrance certificate to the petitioners after effacing the entry of attachment noted in favour of Respondents 2 to 4 within a time limit prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.
C. Grant such other reliefs as are deemed fit and proper.
D. Grant the cost of this Writ Petition.”
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioners are the successful Auction Purchasers of land having an extent of 43.99 cents and building thereon in Re.Sy.No.507/4 of Kalpetta Village, Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad District, which was brought for sale by the 5th respondent as per the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”). Ext.P1 sale certificate was issued and registered as Deed No.1943/1/2021 of SRO, Kalpetta. The property is stated as mortgaged by one Sri.Sushil Kumar to the 5th respondent towards security for the financial facilities availed. Ext.P2 is the letter dated 06.09.2014 confirming the deposit of the title deed and creation of mortgage on 05.09.2014. Though the sale deed was registered in favour of the petitioners, in Ext.P3 encumbrance certificate, it is shown that an attachment over the property has been effected by respondents 2 and 3, Employees Provident Fund Organisation and by the 4th respondent, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 246/2018 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Thaliparamba. On enquiry, it is found that the 2nd respondent has effected an attachment through the 3rd respondent for Employees Provident Fund (EPF) dues of Kalpetta Janakshema Maruthi Chits Pvt. Ltd. as per Ext.P4 order dated 09.10.2019. Similarly, the 4th respondent has also obtained Ext.P5 attachment order dated 16.07.2018 from the Munsiff’s Court, Taliparamba in O.S.No.246 of 2018. Petitioners contend that all the attachments are subsequent to the creation of the mortgage in favour of the 5th respondent Bank, and the same is liable to be effaced. Petitioners also submit that this position is covered by the decisions of this Court in Madhan v. Sub Registrar (2014 (1) KLT 406), Ali Ashraf M.M. and another v. Sub Registrar, Thrissur (judgment dated 24.07.2015 in W.A.No.612 of 2015) and the judgment in Secretary, Keechery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v Sajitha Nizar alias Sajitha P.M. and others, 2020 (6) KLT 68. Thereupon, Ext.P6 representation was filed before the 1st respondent, Sub Registrar and the petitioners were informed that no steps would be taken to efface the attachment in favour of respondents 2 to 4 unless there is a direction issued by this Court. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioners have approached this Court.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 through the learned standing counsel for EPF Organisation, wherein it is stated that M/s. Kalpetta Janakshema Maruthi Chits Pvt. Ltd. is an establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident
