IMPORTANT POINTS
The attachments effected subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the bank do not affect the title and ownership of the petitioner over the subject property. Such attachments have no impact on the sale conducted under the Act and the same ceases to have any effect or fall to the ground the moment the sale is confirmed in favour of the petitioner

JUDGMENT :

Ravikumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.11487 of 2019 dated 3.2.2020. The 7th respondent in the said writ petition is the appellant and the writ petitioner therein is the first respondent herein. Hereafter in this judgment the parties are referred to in accordance with their rank and status in this appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 to 5.

3. The first respondent herein filed the above mentioned writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 therein viz., respondents 3 and 4 herein, to effect mutation of the property in question in her favour pursuant to Ext.P1. The further prayer was for a direction to the Sub Registrar to efface the attachment obtained by respondents 6 and 7 in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 in the records of the aforesaid Sub Registry, forthwith. The appellant filed counter affidavit resisting the claims and contentions of the first respondent-writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge on analysis of the facts arrived at the conclusion that the case is squarely covered in favour of the writ petitioner as per the decision of this Court in Madhan.S. v. Sub Registrar, Kollam and Others reported in 2014 (1) KHC 249. It is in the said circumstances that, feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the 7th respondent therein preferred this appeal.

4. On going through the pleadings in the writ petition as also in this appeal we do not find involvement of any factual dispute. The undisputed facts obtained from pleadings and materials on record would reveal that the property in question is an extent of 5.56 Ares with a building therein, comprised in Re-survey No.597/14 of Amballoor Village in Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District and its then title holder one Sri.Shamsudeen mortgaged the same with Federal Bank Ltd., on 27.6.2014. Chronic default on the part of the mortgagee in payment of the loan amount constrained the Bank to issue notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity 'SARFAESI Act.”) on 17.7.2015. Consequently, possession of the said property was taken by the Bank on 9.10.2015, after complying with the prescribed procedures. The factum of taking possession of the property was published in two leading newspapers. In accordance with the procedures auction of the property was conducted by the 6th respondent herein, the Authorised Officer of the Federal Bank Limited. Being the successful bidder sale certificate was registered in favour of the writ petitioner/the first respondent and thereafter, Ext.P1 sale deed was executed by the 6th respondent herein in favour of the first respondent on 26.2.2019. Thereupon, the first respondent applied for mutation of the property in her name. She was informed as per Ext.P2 that it could not be effected on account of pendency of I.A.No.2354/2015 in O.S.No.505 of 2015 before Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, involving the said property. The first respondent thereupon, obtained the encumbrance certificate to find existence of order of attachment obtained by respondent No.6 in the writ petition and the appellant respectively from the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha and from the Arbitration Court/Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (General), Ernakulam. The Munsiff's Court passed the order of attachment on 21.10.2015 and the Arbitration Court passed the order of attachment on 7.7.2015, evidently after the creation of mortgage of the property with Federal Bank Limited. It is in the said circumstances that the writ petition was filed seeking the aforementioned prayers.

5. The 6th respondent in the writ petition who obtained order of attachment from the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha in O.S.No.505 of 2015 did not contest the writ petition. It is the case of the appellant who was the 7th respondent in the writ petition that in AR