High Courts should not entertain writ petitions challenging financial recovery proceedings under statutory frameworks when effective appellate or remedial forums are established, as these legislations function as self-contained codes for grievance redressal and complex factual disputes regarding property titles are not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.9224 of 2026 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 12.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. According to the appellants, they are the absolute owners of the properties measuring an extent of 7.833 cents with a residential building situated in Survey No.1055/3-16 and 9.40 cents in Survey No.1055/3-17 of Cheranelloor Village, which was offered as security for the loan availed from the 1^st respondent Bank. The appellants state that during 2003-04, when the appellants were in financial distress, the 2^nd respondent approached the 2^nd appellant and offered help for securing a loan by having the properties temporarily transferred to his name with a solemn promise for reconveyance upon loan clearance. Pursuant to this representation, the appellants executed sale deeds bearing Nos. 3816 of 2004 and 3515 of 2004, respectively, in favour of the 2^nd respondent purely for availing a loan from the Bank of India and Union Bank of India. Subsequently, they have executed Exts.P1 and P2 agreements dated 10.03.2004 and 29.03.2004, respectively, stipulating reconveyance of the properties covered by sale deeds on repayment of the share of the loan availed by the appellants. The appellants diligently remitted their share of loan repayment totalling Rs. 19,40,000/- by 25.01.2019. However, the 2^nd respondent committed a criminal breach of trust by fraudulently and clandestinely pledging the title deeds of the properties with the 1^st respondent Bank to avail a substantial overdraft facility for his personal and business purposes without the appellants' knowledge or consent.

2.1. The appellants further state that upon discovering the pledging of the title deeds and availing of a loan by the 2^nd respondent, the appellants filed S.A.No.202 of 2020 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ for short), challenging the mortgage, and the said S.A. is pending adjudication. The appellants further filed O.S.No.234 of 2020 before the additional Sub Court III, Ernakulam, to set aside the sale deeds, which was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short). The appellants approached this Court by filing O.P.(DRT)No.23 of 2024, praying to direct the Tribunal to dispose of S.A.No.202 of 2020, within a time to be fixed by this Court. But this Court, by Ext.P6, judgment dated 29.05.2025, closed the O.P.(DRT). The appellants also approached the Competition Commission, New Delhi, by filing Case No.11 of 2024, which was dismissed as per Ext.P8 order dated 05.06.2024, however, acknowledging the financial arrangement between the appellants and the 2^nd respondent.

2.2. The appellants plead that they initiated criminal proceedings against the 2^nd respondent by filing CMP No.1270 of 2024 before the ACJM Court, Ernakulam, which was dismissed, vide Ext.P9 order dated 24.05.2025 due to non-appearance of the counsel of the appellants. Now, the appellants have filed Crl. M.C.No.681 of 2026 for restoration of the criminal proceedings, and the same is pending before the ACJM Court, Ernakulam. Despite the pendency of the S.A. before the Tribunal, the 1^st respondent Bank issued Ext.P11 communication dated 10.08.2025 demanding the appellants to vacate the residential house, citing an order they obtained in M.C.No.429 of 2019 from the Court of the