2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 7035
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J
BALAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
ANGADIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43238 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.K.MOHANAKANNAN, Shri.ADARSH MOHAN K.
For the Respondents: Sri.P.SAMSUDIN, Shri.JASNEED JAMAL, Smt.LIRA A.B., Smt.DEVIKA E.D.
The court determined the conditions under which a borrower may reclaim mortgaged property sold in auction, allowing for repayment in instalments despite prior auction confirmation.
Headnote:The petitioner, having availed credit facilities from the respondent Bank, entered into proceedings under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, leading to the sale of mortgaged property. The court found merit in allowing the petitioner to repay the debt in instalments, despite the Bank's auction of the property. The court ruled that coercive proceedings were to be stayed to allow repayment, facilitating reconveyance of the property upon settlement. The final direction was to accept repayments and conditionally allow for reconveyance upon full payment.
JUDGMENT The petitioner availed credit facilities from the respondent Bank. On default being committed, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969 and an award was obtained determining the liability of the petitioner. The award was put to execution and the mortgaged property was brought to sale. In the auction sale, since there were no other bidders, the Bank itself purchased the property and the sale has been confirmed. At present, the proceedings are at the stage of execution, where an application has been filed by the respondent Bank for effecting delivery. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the above writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to approach the Bank for settlement of the liability in terms of the provisions contained in the "നവകേ(cid:4)രളീയം കുടിശ്ശി(cid:4) നിവാരണ പദ്ധതി 2025-26”. It is submitted that since the proceedings are only at the stage of delivery, it is still open to the petitioner to claim the benefit of the "നവകേ(cid:4)രളീയം കുടിശ്ശി(cid:4) നിവാരണ പദ്ധതി 2025-26”.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would submit that the benefits of the "നവകേ(cid:4)രളീയം കുടിശ്ശി(cid:4)
നിവാരണ പദ്ധതി 2025-26” cannot be extended to the petitioner as the property of the petitioner, which was mortgaged, was already sold in auction and purchased by the Bank. Moreover, it is pointed out that the sale has already been confirmed in favour of the Bank and sale certificate has also been issued. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the only indulgence that can be shown to the petitioner is that the petitioner can be permitted to clear the liability in some instalments and if the petitioner clears the liability and pays the amounts, which may be required to be paid for re-conveyance of the property, the property can be re-conveyed to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also submits that the sale was conducted after execution proceedings were launched through the Munsiff’s Court, Perinthalmanna. It is also submitted that the property was purchased by the Bank for a sum of Rs.10,00,035/-. It is also submitted that a sum of Rs.80,050/- was paid by the Bank towards stamp duty. It is submitted that, the liability of the petitioner, at a relevant time was Rs.8,35,035/- and the balance amount is in court deposit.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, I am of the opinion that there is considerable merit in the contention taken by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that at this stage when the property has already been sold and the sale has been confirmed and sale certificate has also been issued, it would not be open to the petitioner to claim the benefit of any One Time Settlement. However, since the property has been purchased by the Bank itself in auction, the petitioner can be permitted to clear the liability in some instalments together with any amount that may be required for the purposes of re-conveyance of the property and if the entire amounts are paid, the Bank can be directed to re-convey the property to the petitioner. Credit of any amount paid by the petitioner as a condition for the interim order shall also be given to him. 5. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondent bank to accept repayment of the entire outstanding amount along with any accrued interest, costs and charges from the petitioner in the following manner:-
(i) The petitioner shall pay the outstanding amount of Rs.8,35,035/- (as on the date of sale) along with any accrued interest, costs and charges in 15 equated monthly instalments. The costs shall also include any cost incurred by the Bank in connection with the auction/conveyance and costs of Rs.80,500/- paid towards Stamp Duty.
(ii) The first instalment shall be paid o