JUDGMENT : ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. The petitioner is the daughter of late Sri. Mohanan, who purchased a property from the 1st respondent bank in the auction sale conducted by the 3rd respondent, under the provision of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), 2002. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the fact that, the sale was conducted by the 3rd respondent in favour of the father of the petitioner and Ext.P1 sale certificate was issued, the sale was not registered in the name of the auction purchaser. The petitioner also has a case that the physical possession of the property was not delivered to the auction purchaser. The auction purchaser, the father of the petitioner, passed away on 16.07.2019, and the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the deceased. 2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows. 3. As mentioned above, as part of recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, initiated by the 3rd respondent in respect of the credit facility availed by one Mr. Jayaraj, the property of the said borrower was brought to sale. In the sale conducted, the father of the petitioner participated, and he happened to be the successful bidder. Based on the same, Ext.P1 sale certificate was issued in favour of the father of the petitioner on 17.09.2010. Subsequently, the auction purchaser claimed to have issued a lawyer notice dated 24.05.2011 to the respondent bank, pointing out that, despite the issuance of the sale certificate, the registration of the sale was not affected, and thus, calling upon the bank to execute necessary documents in this regard. Even though the said notice is not produced, the reply notice submitted by the respondent bank is produced as Ext.P2, wherein, the bank has denied the allegation. It is stated in Ext.P2 that after receipt of the lawyer notice, the bank contacted the auction purchaser on several occasions and requested him to visit the office at his convenience for a discussion, so that, the bank could clarify its position and also explore the possibility of providing feasible assistance that may be legally permissible. According to the petitioner, even though the auction purchaser approached the bank on several occasions, nothing materialised. 4. According to the petitioner, even though the auction purchaser approached the bank on several occasions, nothing materialised. 4. In the meantime, the auction purchaser also submitted a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, which resulted in Ext.P17 order passed by the Banking Ombudsman, by which the complaint was dismissed on the ground that, the auction purchaser did not have the locus standi to file the complaint against the bank as he was not a consumer of the bank. However, even though the complaint was rejected, the Banking Ombudsman forwarded the said complaint to the bank for considering the grievances highlighted by the auction purchaser. Acting upon the said complaint, Ext.P18 seems to have been issued by the respondent bank on 22.07.2011, to the auction purchaser, requiring him to contact the bank to sort out the issue at the earliest. 5. Thereafter, Ext.P3 was submitted by the auction purchaser under the Right to Information Act (in short, the “RTI Act”), seeking the details as to the actual reason for not registering the document, and the bank was also requested to intimate about the time within which the registration could be affected. The same was responded to by the bank, as per Ext.P4, stating that the information sought will not come under the definition of information under Section 2 (f) of the ‘RTI Act,' and therefore details cannot be disclosed. However, the said application was forwarded to the authorised officer treating it as a complaint. Thereafter, Ext.P6 dated 3.03.2018, was issued to the petitioner, wherein, it is intimated to the petitioner that, the original title deed of the property in the name of the borrower Mr. Jayaraj is now with the Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited, to whom the bank had assigned another loan account of the borrower. It was also stated that, they have taken up the issue with the higher authorities for the release of the title deed from them, and they expressed their willingness to get the same at the earliest, to register the sale certificate in the name of the auction purchaser. 6. In the meantime, the auction purchaser passed away, and the petitioner herein, the daughter of the auction purchaser, issued Ext.P7, a notice on 16.02.2021, requiring the bank to settle the matter by registering the sale deed. 6. In the meantime, the auction purchaser passed away, and the petitioner herein, the daughter of the auction purchaser, issued Ext.P7, a notice on 16.02.2021, requiring the bank to settle the matter by registering the sale deed. Acting upon Ext.P7, Ext.P8 communication was issued by the respondent bank to the Sub-registrar, Sasthamangalam, intimating their intention to register the property in favour of the petitioner and requesting the Sub-registrar to ensure that, no transaction in the property is registered, without the written consent of the bank. 7. Since the registration of the property did not materialize even thereafter, this writ petition is submitted seeking the following reliefs : i. To issue writ/order/direction/commanding the respondents to register Ext.P1 sale certificate in the name of the purchaser (his legal heir), to deliver physical possession of the property which the respondents sold under Ext. Pl, and to hand over the original title deeds of the borrower of the property without any further delay. ii. In case of failure to direct the 1" respondent bank to repay sale price with interest from the date of receipt till repayment and to award compensation. iii. Such other reliefs those which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the interests of justice also may be granted. 8. This writ petition was earlier disposed of by this Court as per the judgment dated 26.10.2022, directing the petitioner to provide the necessary documents to show the details of the legal heirs, who are to get the sale certificate registered in their names, to the 1st respondent, and the 1st respondent shall thereupon was to take initial steps for completing the registration of the sales certificate. It was also directed that, necessary action shall be taken by the 1st respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of details from the petitioner. The said judgment was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Writ Appeal No. 1837 of 2022, wherein, the petitioner has raised a contention that, even though in the writ petition she had raised a contention that the physical possession of the property was not delivered to the petitioner, the same was not dealt with in the judgment. To substantiate the same, various documents were also produced. However, the said writ appeal was disposed of, relegating the petitioner to seek a review of the judgment. 9. To substantiate the same, various documents were also produced. However, the said writ appeal was disposed of, relegating the petitioner to seek a review of the judgment. 9. Accordingly, the review petition was submitted before this Court, and based on the same, the judgment rendered by this Court on 26.10.2022 was recalled, and the writ petition was restored. After the restoration of the writ petition, the writ petition was amended by producing certain other documents. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the respondents, denying the averments contained in the writ petition and disputing the reliefs sought therein. The petitioner had filed a reply affidavit to the counter filed by the respondents. 10. I have heard Sri. Thomas M. Jacob, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Tom K. Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically contended that, the auction purchaser neither provided with the physical possession of the property, nor issued with a sale certificate that is registered. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioner, after referring to various documents, pointed out that now, as a result of the lapses on the part of the respondent bank in ensuring the release of proper documents and registration of the sale certificate in time, the petitioner is now denied the benefit of enjoyment of the fruits of the sale affected in favour of the auction purchaser. This submission is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on Exts. P12, P13, P14, and P15 documents, which would show the sale of the remaining portion of the property purchased by the borrower, Sri Jayaraj. 12. It is pointed out that, as far as the property, which is the subject matter of Ext. P1 is concerned, the same originally belonged to one Mr. Thankappan Nadar, and the total extent of the property was 19 cents. Mr. Jayaraj, the borrower of the respondent bank, had purchased a portion of the said property as per Ext.P11, wherein, the the extent of the property assigned was 13 cents out of the total 19 cents originally owned by the said Mr. Thankappan Nadar. According to the petitioner, the property described in Ext.P11, was lying on the northern side of the 19 cents, adjoining a road on the eastern side. Thankappan Nadar. According to the petitioner, the property described in Ext.P11, was lying on the northern side of the 19 cents, adjoining a road on the eastern side. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to attention of this court, the description of the boundaries in Ext.P11 to substantiate the same. Subsequently, the remaining 6 cents of the property was sold by Mr. Thankappan Nadar to one Mr. Suresh as per the Ext.P12 document, where, the properties are described in tune with the boundaries of the property as shown in Ext.P11. Subsequently, Ext.P13 deed was executed by the said Mr. Suresh, reconveying the property to Mr. Thankappan Nadar. Later, as per Ext.P14 deed dated 28.02.2026, Ext.P14 sale deed was executed by Mr. Thankappan Nadar in favour of one Sri V.E. Selvaraj, wherein, the description of the property of 6 cents was not that of the remaining property, out of the total 19 cents of Mr. Thankappan Nadar, after the sale was effected in favor of the borrower Mr. Jayaraj. In fact, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the description of the property in Ext.P14 that, the sale was affected in such a manner that, the property of the auction purchaser was shown as a property lying on the western side of the total extent of the property, without any direct road access and providing access only through a small pathway leading to the road. Thus, according to the petitioner, the property as shown in Ext. P1, is no longer available for the petitioner to take possession. 13. Apart from the above, it is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon Ext.P10 basic tax register and Ext.P15 field sketch that, the boundaries of the property as mentioned in Ext.P1 are that of the property described as item 17 in Ext.P15 that belongs to the daughter of Mr. Thankappan Nadar, the person who assigned the property to the borrower of the bank. Thus, it is pointed out that the description of the property was incorrectly shown. Besides, it is also the case of the petitioner that, while granting the credit facility to the said Mr. Thankappan Nadar, the person who assigned the property to the borrower of the bank. Thus, it is pointed out that the description of the property was incorrectly shown. Besides, it is also the case of the petitioner that, while granting the credit facility to the said Mr. Jayaraj and initiating further proceedings, no attempt was made by the bank to ensure that the property is mutated in favor of the borrower, and consequently, the subsequent purchases affected by Mr. Thankappan Nadar resulted in the mutation being affected in favor of Mr. Selvaraj based on Ext.P14, in such a way that, going by the revenue records, the property as described in Ext.P1 is not available for the petitioner to take possession. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that the property as described in Ext.P1 is not available as of now. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that, this writ petition cannot be entertained, as it involves the identification of the property, which is basically a question of fact. Apart from that, the contention of the petitioner that the physical possession of the property was not delivered, is denied by the respondent bank. This denial is based on Ext.P1 sale certificate, where it is specifically mentioned that the possession has been handed over to the auction pruchaser. It is also pointed out that, in any of the subsequent communications issued by the auction purchaser or the petitioner herein, the non-delivery of the possession of property was not raised and the said contention is raised only in the year 2022. Therefore, it is pointed out that, at this point of time, i.e., after 12 years, the said contention cannot be raised. As regards the non- registration of the sale certificate, it is pointed out that, they are prepared to register the sale certificate. The learned counsel also explained that, even though in Ext.P2, they have requested the auction purchaser to approach them to resolve the issue, by expressing their willingness to execute the sale certificate, the auction purchaser did not approach them immediately thereafter. Later, the aforesaid title deeds were handed over to the Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd, in connection with the recovery of another loan availed by the said Mr.jayaraj. Later, the aforesaid title deeds were handed over to the Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd, in connection with the recovery of another loan availed by the said Mr.jayaraj. Any how, it is asserted by the learned counsel for the respondent that, they would be in a position to retrieve the said document and hand over the title deed within a period of three months. 15. I have carefully gone through the records. Of course, it is true that, there are some discrepancies with respect to the boundaries of the properties. It is also a fact that, Exts.P12, P13, & P14 documents would indicate that, certain transactions have taken place in relation to the property of the petitioner, after the Ext.P1 sale certificate, which may infringe the right of the petitioner. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the documents produced before this court would indicate that, all along the auction purchaser as well as the petitioner, were highlighting the grievance regarding the non-registration of the document and failure to hand over the original title deed to the petitioner. The question of non-delivery of possession of the property was raised for the first time in the writ petition that was filed in 2022. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically highlighted the obligations of the respondent bank as per Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act , relating to the necessity to hand over the documents and deliver an encumbered possession of the property. However, it is to be noted in this regard that, apparently the first communication issued by the auction purchaser highlighting the non-execution of the document and failure to hand over the original title deeds is by way of a notice dated 24.05.2011, which was responded to, by the bank, as per Ext.P2 wherein, the bank directed the auction purchaser to approach them for further processing of the matter. The next communication is seen to have been made only by way of an application under ‘RTI Act’ as evidenced by Ext.P3, which is in the year 28.12.2017, i.e., after 6 years. The further communication at the instance of the petitioner is Ext.P7 dated 16.02.2021. In any of the said communications, the question of non delivery of possession of the property has not been dealt with. The further communication at the instance of the petitioner is Ext.P7 dated 16.02.2021. In any of the said communications, the question of non delivery of possession of the property has not been dealt with. With regard to the discrepancies highlighted in the boundary of the properties, and the non availability of the property as described in Ext.P1 highlighted by the petitioner, it is to be noted that, even though this Court finds that there is some force in the said contentions, an adjudication on the issues relating to the same, cannot be made, in a writ proceeding, as the same can be settled only by adducing evidence and appreciation thereof. Such an exercise cannot be carried out in this writ petition, and it is for the petitioner to invoke the remedies under the civil law. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed various decisions highlighting the circumstances under which the interference could be made in a writ petition, that include cases where, serious lapses are established on the part of the bank in fulfilling its obligations while conducting the sale under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The same include the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandra Shankar Deodhar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 1974 (1) SCC 317 , the decision rendered by the Calcutta High Court in Corporation Bank & Anr. v. Jayesh Kumar Jha AIR 2019 Calcutta 2328, the decision rendered by Punjab and Hariyana High Court in Llovegeet Dhuria v. State Bank of India 2022 KHC OnLine 7507, the decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P. 2024 AHC 178447, the decision rendered by the Orissa High Court in Divyam Agarwal v. Indian Bank WP(C) 31914/2024, and Mandava Krishna Chaitanya v. UCO Bank , Asset Management Branch, the decision rendered by the High Court of State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh MANU/AP/0087/2018. 17. However, those decisions are rendered in cases where, the lapses on the part of the respondent bank were clearly established from the records. However in this case, as far as the contention regarding the failure to deliver possession of the property is concerned, the same has not been raised by the petitioner immediately after issuing Ext.P1 and the same was raised only in 2022 by filing this writ petition. However in this case, as far as the contention regarding the failure to deliver possession of the property is concerned, the same has not been raised by the petitioner immediately after issuing Ext.P1 and the same was raised only in 2022 by filing this writ petition. On the other hand, the specific case of the respondent bank is that the delivery of possession was affected immediately after Ext.P1, and thus, this is a disputed question of fact, which has to be resolved in appropriate proceedings where, the evidence can be adduced by the parties. As observed above, such an exercise is not possible in a writ petition. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to establish the same before a competent civil court. 18. When it comes to the question of the non-registration of the document and the failure to hand over the original title deeds of the property to the petitioner, it is the submission of the respondent bank that, they are willing to do the same, within a period of three months. In such circumstances, since one of the main reliefs sought by the petitioner is to register Ext.P1 sale certificate in the name of the legal heirs of the auction purchaser, I am of the view that, in the light of the submission made by the respondent, that relief can be granted. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to ensure that a sale certificate is registered in the name of the legal heirs of the auction purchaser named in Ext.P1 and the same shall be affected within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It is also directed that, the petitioner/legal heirs of the auction purchaser, shall pay the necessary stamp duty and other expenses for affecting the sale, to enable the respondent to execute the sale deed. It is further directed that while registering the sale certificate, the respondent bank shall also hand over the original title deeds of the property covered by Ext.P1 to the petitioner/legal heirs of the auction purchaser as well. For the purpose of the resolution of the dispute regarding the failure to give physical possession of the property and the questions relating to the identity of the property, it shall be open to the petitioner or other legal heirs, to invoke appropriate civil remedies before the competent court. For the purpose of the resolution of the dispute regarding the failure to give physical possession of the property and the questions relating to the identity of the property, it shall be open to the petitioner or other legal heirs, to invoke appropriate civil remedies before the competent court. None of the observations made in this writ petition would stand in the way of the petitioner/the legal heirs of the auction purchaser in invoking such remedies. Although the petitioner had submitted an application for appointing an advocate commissioner for identifying the property, I am of the view that, appointing a commissioner and obtaining a report in this writ petition would not serve any purpose, as the dispute related to the identity of the property is a disputed question of fact. I have already held that, it is a matter to be resolved by a competent civil court. Therefore, it shall be open to the petitioner to seek for appropriate reliefs in this regard, before the civil court. It is further clarified that, as the petitioner was pursuing this contention in this writ petition, the petitioner shall be entitled to seek exclusion of the period during which this writ petition was pending, i.e., from 03.08.2022 to till the date of the judgment, while computing the period of limitation.