Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9341
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
YUSUF K.P – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1726 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MANSOOR ALI
For the Respondents: SMT.C.ANCHALA, SMT.ALEENA SABU M., SMT.ASEEBA V. H., SRI. DHEERAJ A.S., GP SRI. SALIL NARAYANAN K.A, SC
The liability of a guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal borrower, allowing lenders to proceed against the guarantor's property in case of default.
Headnote:The petitioners challenge the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the guarantor's property despite the loan being secured by the principal borrower's property. The Court holds that the guarantor's liability is co-extensive with the borrower's, allowing recovery from any property. The petitioners are directed to repay the amount in installments, with proceedings held in abeyance upon compliance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details regarding petitioners' loan and guarantor liability. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's intent to resolve the matter. (Para 3) |
| 3. the court's ruling on property and liability. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. directives for repayment and consequences of default. (Para 6) |
| 5. final disposition of the writ petition. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner had availed a loan of Rs. 35,00,000/-
from the 3rd respondent. The said loan was secured by a property having an extent of 38.04 Ares in Re-Survey No.21/21 of Vadakkanchery Village. The 2nd petitioner was a guarantor to the said loan. According to the petitioners, despite the 1st petitioner's property having been mortgaged for the loan, the respondents are now proceeding against the guarantor's property as per Ext.P1 and has threatened the sale of the said property. The petitioners challenge the revenue recovery proceedings.
2. The learned Standing Counsel, upon instructions, submitted that the total liability due from the 1st petitioner as on 03.02.2026 is Rs.47,47,278/- and that the respondents are willing to accept repayment of the same in reasonable instalments.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of.
4. The liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with the principal borrower. Neither the borrower nor the guarantor can dictate as to which property should be proceeded against by the lender in the event of default in repayment. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that only one of the properties should be proceeded against cannot be acceded to, especially in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
5. Apart from the above, it is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that the property mortgaged by the 1st petitioner having an extent of 38.04 Ares has only a value of Rs.8,03,405/- being the fair value fixed by the Government and the same is not sufficient to secure the liability of the petitioners.
6. Be that as it may, since the learned counsel confined his submissions to repayment of loan in instalments, I am of the view that petitioners can be directed to repay the entire amount in equated monthly instalments.
7. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent is directed to accept repayment of the entire liability of the 1st petitioner totaling to Rs.47,47,278/- as on 03.02.2026, along with future interest and costs in 20 equated monthly instalments, with the first instalment commencing from 05.03.2026, and the remaining instalments payable on the 5th of every succeeding month. It is clarified that in the event of default of any one instalment, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with the revenue recovery proceedings already initiated. However, as long as the petitioners continue to repay the amount, proceedings in Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
