Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
VINCENT C – Appellant
Versus
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) 15401/2024
Fraud - Property Rights - Article 226 - The court ruled that the petitioners cannot seek relief under Article 226 for a property dispute arising from a fraudulent transfer deed, emphasizing the need for civil remedies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed ownership of a property allegedly transferred fraudulently to the 2nd respondent, who used it as collateral for a loan from the State Bank of India, leading the bank to pursue the petitioners' property for loan recovery.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the petitioners must seek civil remedies to address their claim regarding the fraudulent transfer deed, as direct relief under Article 226 was inappropriate for resolving property disputes.
Issues: Whether the petitioners can seek relief under Article 226 for a property dispute involving a fraudulent transfer deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that disputes regarding property ownership and fraudulent deeds require civil litigation and cannot be resolved through a writ petition under Article 226.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed, allowing petitioners to seek civil remedy for the fraudulent deed.
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024 The case of the petitioners is that the 5th respondent- borrower has obtained loan from the State Bank of India mortgaging the property allegedly of the 2nd respondent.
According to the petitioners, the property in question belongs to the petitioners and creating a fraudulent Transfer Deed, the said property has been transferred to the 2nd respondent, who in turn has deposited the said deed by way of security for the loan availed by the 5th respondent.
2. The petitioners submit that the Bank is now proceeding against the petitioners' property. There are other secured assets to ensure repayment of loan availed by the 5th respondent. The Bank may be directed to proceed against those properties and leave alone the property of the petitioners.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the Bank.
4. The allegation of the petitioners is that the secured property in question belongs to the petitioners and the 2nd respondent has created a fraudulent Transfer Deed in respect of the said property. If that be so, the petitioners have to invoked civil remedy available to the petitioners to set aside such fraudulent deed. The petitioners cannot directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .
5. Standing Counsel submits that the borrower had approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.13718 of 2024 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 11.04.2024 granting W.P.(C)No.15401 of 2024 time to the borrower to repay the outstanding amount in instalments.
Taking into consideration all the above aspects, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of. This will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach competent Court for redressal of their grievances relating to fraudulent Title Deed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
