VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Pal Kannan v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

DISMISSED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
12 February 2026
Bench
G. Jayachandran, K.K. Ramakrishnan
Case no.
WP(MD) 3931/2026

Follow Madras High CourtFollow G. JayachandranFollow K.K. Ramakrishnan

Judgment

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.] The petitioner apprehends that by virtue of the order dated

05.01.2026, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni, in Crl.M.P.No.4434 of 2025, the Advocate Commissioner is likely to attach his property comprised in Survey No.490/2B of Koraiyuthu, Megamalai Panchayat, which has been settled in his favour by his father and upon which, he has put up a construction.

¶2According to the petitioner, his brother and his brother's wife, who are the respondents 3 & 2 herein respectively, have availed loan from the respondent – Bank and thereafter, become defaulters. For availing loan, they have shown the property in Survey No.490/2C settled by their father by a registered settlement dated 18.11.2011 as surety. While so, for the default in repayment of the due amount, the respondent – Bank proceeded with the matter under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and obtained an order from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni, on 05.01.2026, for taking possession of the mortgaged property. The petitioner's fear, as expressed in this writ petition and from the oral submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that under the guise of taking possession of the mortgaged property in Survey No.490/2C, which is a vacant land even as per the present survey certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, there is every possibility of taking possession of his dwelling house situated in Survey No.490/2B.

¶3After giving anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, we are of the view that the apprehension of the petitioner is ill found. The document, which has been deposited by the respondents 2 & 3 for availing loan as an equitable mortgage, is the settlement deed dated 18.11.2011 executed in favour of the third respondent by his father, in respect of the schedule mentioned property. The schedule of property to the petition filed under Section 14(1) & (2) of the SARFAESI Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni, reads as below: "SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY Co-Applicant 1 : - MR.KASIMAYAN All the piece and parcel of land and building comprised in S.No.490/2 with the extent of 2622 sq.ft. Land situated at Megamalai Village, Theni District within the Kadamalaigundu Sub Registration Office, Periyakulam Registration District. North by : Land of Chinnasamy South by : Land of Chinnasamy East by : Land of Chinnasamy West by : Vellimalai road Measurement : East west 57 ft. North south – 46 ft. Situated at within the Sub-Registration District of Kadamalaigundu and Registration District of Periyakulam. Together with all buildings and structure attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to earth, both present and future and all easamentary / mamool rights annexed thereto."

¶4The land comprised in Survey No.490 has been sub-divided subsequently as 490/2A, 490/2B, 490/2C & 490/2D etc., in view of the settlement deed dated 18.11.2011 executed by the father of the petitioner and the third respondent. From the schedule of the property mentioned in the petition filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the extent of the property is mentioned as 2622 sq.ft. That is the reason why, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the impugned order, to avoid unnecessary misunderstanding or ambiguity in identifying the properties, has specifically directed the petitioner or petitioner's side counsel therein to furnish the physical copy of the petition with description of the property to the Advocate Commissioner and the Advocate Commissioner has been directed to inspect the petition mentioned property and proceed further to take physical possession thereof. Therefore, there is no necessity for the petitioner to apprehend that his portion of the property given by way of settlement by his father will be taken possession by virtue of the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. If at all the petitioner has any right over the property, which he claims, he has to produce the document to substantiate his claim before the Advocate Commissioner for proper identification. This Court need not look into the identification of the property when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has consciously mandated the Advocate Commissioner to fix the identity of the property, which has been mortgaged and subject matter of the impugned order. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶5Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

[G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]

12.02.2026 NCC : Index : Internet :

krk To: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni. DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,-J. AND K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,-J. krk W.P.(MD)-No.3931-of-2026 and W.M.P.(MD)-No.3228-of-2026

12.02.2026

Case details

Parties and counsel

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.02.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN and W.M.P.(MD) No.3228 of 2026 Pal Kannan ... Petitioner -vs- 1.Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited rep.by its Authorized Officer K.Muthuselvam S/o.Karuppaiah having registered office at No.769 Spencer Plaza, Phase-II 4th Floor, Anna Salai Chennai-600 002 Madurai Branches Cluster Hub Office at Equitas Small Finance Bank G.V.Complex 2nd Floor, No.9-1/1A Jawahar 2nd Street Bye Pass Road Madurai-625 010 2.Maduraiyammal 3.Kasi Mayan ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the entire records in relating to the impugned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni and to quash the same in respect of the petitioner's property in survey no.490/2, New survey no.490/2B to an extent of 2622 square feets, situating in Koraiyuthu, Megamalai Panchayat, Kadaimalai Kundu, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District. For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik For Respondents : Mr.Ajay Parthiban for R1

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.