Front Page

Bank seeks possession of property in Mary Roy case

George Jacob

Recovery of dues from company run by her brother is basis of the action

KOTTAYAM: The issues involved in the legal process initiated by Mary Roy, whose writ petition in the Supreme Court led to the landmark 1986 judgment that ensured equal rights with their male siblings for Syrian Christian women in their ancestral property, have long been settled. But more than two decades after she set off the process, a dispute concerning the property here that was the very basis for the proceedings, continues. Seemingly adding a new dimension to the pending issues, State Bank of Travancore has now moved to take possession of the entire property, comprising four different parcels of land and buildings, for recovery of dues from the company that was run by her brother George Isaac, who had mortgaged them as security for sums of money borrowed from the bank. The three other siblings (including the other brother) had no part in the running of the company or in the process of borrowing and did not benefit from the money borrowed, it is pointed out. The notice has now been served not only on George Isaac and his wife Soosy George Isaac, but also on Ms. Roy, Molly Joseph (Ms. Roy's sister), and Elaine Singleton (the widow of another brother, John Isaac, now in Canada).

According to the notice served by the public sector bank, Malabar Coast Products of which Mr. George Isaac and his wife were partners, stands to repay in excess of Rs.1.25 crores. The value of the property by current market rates is several times this amount, though. The entire property, which came to Ms. Roy's mother Susie Isaac from her husband P.V. Isaac through a life estate, was the primary issue of contention in the Mary Roy case. The mother was given the right to hold the properties during her lifetime, according to Ms. Roy, without the right to encumber or alienate them.

Ms. Roy filed a writ petition maintaining that the Travancore Christian Succession Act 1092 stood repealed on the extension of the Indian Succession Act and as such in matters of intestate succession to property of Indian Christians in Travancore State, the relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act would apply. Her contention was upheld by the apex court. Based on the verdict she approached the Sub Court, Kottayam, in 1988, and then the Kerala High Court in 1994, for an equal share in the property along with her two brothers and sister.

Banking on the judgment of the Supreme Court, Ms. Roy claims that she is entitled to her share. She is of the view that as the High Court had also upheld the claim, all that remains is the delineation of her share and grant of separate title. The issue is pending. She had filed a petition before the Sub Court, Kottayam, praying for a final decree after her mother's death in 2000. On February 21, 2005, the court appointed a Commissioner to effect a partition. Meanwhile comes the move by the bank.

SBT, in a letter to Ms. Roy and others, had earlier maintained that the bank accepted the mortgage on the basis of legal opinion received by it. According to the bank, the Christian Succession Act was applicable to intestate succession among Syrian Christians in Travancore until the Supreme Court held otherwise in 1986, while the mortgage was made in 1984.

Ms. Roy received a letter on behalf of the bank dated May 16, giving a 30-day notice period. However, on May 26 she received a possession notice dated May 22. A bank spokesman told The Hindu here on Sunday that it would go through the procedures over a period of time under due process.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu