Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1381 (KER)

V. Gopalakrishnan v. Visalakshi

2015-10-05

ANTONY DOMINIC, P.V.ASHA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Antony Dominic, J. The plaintiff in O.S.182/07 on the file of the Sub Court, Hosdurg is the appellant. He filed the suit, seeking recovery of Rs.15,000/- from the first respondent, his divorced wife. He also sought an order of injunction restraining respondents 2 and 3 from proceeding against one acre of property in R.S.225/1A of Kinanoor village of Hosdurg Taluk. By the decree and judgment impugned in this appeal, though a decree as sought against the first respondent was passed, the prayer for injunction against respondents 2 and 3 was declined. It is aggrieved by this judgment and decree, this appeal is filed. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in March 2000, the first respondent availed of a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from second respondent. The appellant, being the then husband of the first respondent, stood surety to the loan in question and mortgaged one acre of land in R.S.225/1A of Kinanoor village in favour of the bank. Subsequently, first respondent committed default and to cut a long story short, the bank filed A.R.C. 13/02 which resulted in an award directing the first respondent to pay the amount due to the bank and also creating a charge on the mortgaged property. In the Execution Petition filed, the appellant sought to be exonerated himself and on the rejection of such an application, Writ Petition 17697/05 was filed before this Court. In that writ petition, judgment was rendered by this Court granting an instalment facility to the appellant. After suffering such a judgment, the appellant filed O.S.182/07 in which the impugned judgment and decree was passed. 4. Admittedly, Section 100 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act provides that in respect of disputes between the bank and its members, the jurisdiction of the Civil and Revenue Courts stand excluded. Consequently, the grievance if any the appellant had could have been adjudicated only in a proceedings under Section 69 of the said Act. Therefore, the view taken in the judgment under appeal that the relief sought against the bank could not have been granted by the Civil Court, is absolutely unimpeachable. We cannot, therefore, interfere with the judgment and decree in this appeal. 5. Therefore, the view taken in the judgment under appeal that the relief sought against the bank could not have been granted by the Civil Court, is absolutely unimpeachable. We cannot, therefore, interfere with the judgment and decree in this appeal. 5. Be that as it may, even now on behalf of the bank, it is fairly submitted that if the appellant clears the liability that is due, the bank is willing to forego its claim over the mortgaged property which was purchased by it in the sale that was conducted on 8.12.2005 pursuant to the award in A.R.C.13/02. 6. In such circumstances, we direct that the stay of confirmation as ordered by this Court in this appeal will remain in force for a further period of five months from today. In the meanwhile, it would be open to the appellant to discharge the liability due to the bank either by himself or by his nominee, in which event the bank will release or recover the property to the appellant or his nominee, as the case may be. Needless to say that in case the appellant does not take advantage of the above within five months as allowed by us, the third respondent shall confirm the sale in favour of the bank. Subject to the above, the appeal is dismissed.