Sri.Nilesh N.Shah Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation

SRI.NILESH N.SHAH SON OF THE LATE NAROTTAM C. SHAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, M/S. KPC DISTRIBUTORS LLP, 37/2, KHADER SHARIF GARDEN, 4TH CROSS, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU 560 027.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION M.G. ROAD BRANCH KRISHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER

¶16

SRI. RAFIQ AHMED MEHKRI, SON OF THE LATE GHOUSE MOHIUDDIN MEHKRI, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:50021-DB WA No. 1798 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

RESIDING AT NO.D-8, J.M.P ROAD CROSS, OLD SANTHEPET, MYSORE 570 024.

¶20

SRI. MOHAMMED ALI, S/O. THE LATE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶21

MS.SYEDA SABA D/O. THE LATE SYED PARVEZ, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶22

SRI SYED OWAIS S/O. THE LATE SYED PARVEZ, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶23

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.23, BEHIND HMS COMPLEX, CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 002

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGES ORDER DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION NO.13398/2023 DATED 23/10/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:50021-DB WA No. 1798 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

¶33

The present appeal is filed by the writ petitioner calling in question the order dated 23.10.2025 passed in WP.No.13398/2023 (GM-RES), whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

¶34

The petitioner claimed to be the owner of property bearing New No.6, old No.55/1, katha No.55, 4^th cross, Lalbagh Road, Bengaluru ( subject property ), having purchased the same vide registered Sale Deed dated 20.3.2017. The subject property was originally owned by Mohammed Ibrahim and upon his death, the property devolved upon his wife and children. The said Mohammed Ibrahim and his wife availed a loan from the Karnataka State Financial Corporation ( KSFC - respondent No.1) and created an equitable mortgage of the subject property in favour of the KSFC. Subsequently, since they could not clear the loan amount, they approached one Mukhtar Ahmed Mehkri who repaid the loan amount to KSFC. The wife and children of late Mohammed Ibrahim executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney ( GPA ) dated 11.6.2009 in favour of the said Mukhtar Ahmed Mehkri. The

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50021-DB WA No. 1798 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

wife and children of late Mohammed Ibrahim represented by their GPA holder executed a registered Sale Deed dated 13.7.2009 conveying the subject property in favour of one Rafiq Ahmed Mehkri. Subsequently, the said Rafiq Ahmed Mehkri executed a registered Sale Deed dated 20.3.2017 in favour of the petitioner.

¶38

The writ petition was filed seeking for a writ of mandamus to respondent No.1 to release and hand over the original title deeds and other documents of the subject property. It is the case of the writ petitioner that Muktar Ahamed Mehkri, who was the GPA holder of the wife and children of Mohammed Ibrahim, after clearing the loan amount which was availed from the KSFC had filed W.P.No.62033/2016 seeking return of the original documents of the subject property. This Court, vide order dated 5.9.2017 disposed of the said writ petition and ordered as under:

¶39

"3. In a circumstance of the present nature, where the respondent accepts the position that the loan which was obtained by mortgaging secured asset has been repaid and when the respondent does not have objection to return the original document to the original persons, it is seen that, there is no dispute between the parties relating to that aspect of the matter. The only issue in this petition is, whether the respondent should be directed to return the documents to Power of Attorney holder of petitioner Nos.1 to 8 and to petitioner No.9 in this petition.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:50021-DB WA No. 1798 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

As already noticed, the mortgage was made by petitioner No.1 along with her husband, though, petitioner Nos.1 to 8, claim right in respect of the property. In any case, at this stage, directing the respondent to return the documents to General Power of attorney holder of mortgager and to petitioner No.9, would not be justified. However, since the said mortgager is also before this Court in this petition, all that would be directed herein is to permit the petitioner to file an appropriate representation seeking return of the original documents and if petitioner No.1 personally approaches the respondent for return of documents relating to secured asset to General Power of Attorney holder and petitioner No.9 and the acknowledgment for return of the documents be executed by petitioner No.1, in that circumstance, the respondent shall take steps to return the documents on proper acknowledgement being obtained, to the GPA holder in the presence of the petitioners. In addition, an indemnity bond may also be obtained by the respondent undertaking to indemnify them in the event of any other claim is made by the third party. Such consideration of the representation for return of documents shall be made as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four weeks from the date on which the representation is made."

¶44

Pursuant to the order dated 5.9.2017 passed in W.P.No.62033/2016, the appellant got issued a legal notice dated 24.3.2023 to the KSFC seeking for return of the documents. Since the same was refused, the appellant filed W.P.No.13398/2023.

¶45

The learned Single Judge noticed that a civil suit (being OS.No.8091/2022) was pending, wherein certain other persons

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50021-DB WA No. 1798 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the subject property. The KSFC in its statement of objections to the writ petition placed on record that O.S.No.8091/2022 filed by one Sri Mohammed Ali and others in respect of the subject property is pending adjudication before the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, and that the KSFC is arrayed as defendant No.12 in the said suit. The KSFC also entered appearance in the said suit and filed its written statement, wherein it placed on record that it has no objection for return of the original documents, subject to orders passed by the Court in that regard.

¶49

The learned Single Judge after noticing the pendency of the suit (OS No.8091/2022) and noticing the order passed in W.P.No.62033/2016 dismissed the writ petition.

¶50

The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on Section 55(1)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, will not aid the case of the appellant as the same would applicable in a fact situation of a buyer and seller contracting to transact in an immovable property and would be inapplicable in the present fact situation.

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:50021-DB WA No. 1798 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

It is clear and forthcoming that the suit in OS No.8091/2022 is pending adjudication, wherein partition is sought in respect of the subject property. Admittedly, the writ petitioner is not the mortgagor who deposited the title deeds with the KSFC while creating the equitable mortgage. In the said fact situation, the learned Single Judge is justified in refusing to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition. Having regard to the fact that contesting claims of rival parties are pending adjudication in the suit, we are unable to fault the conclusion of the learned Single Judge.

¶55

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶56

Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of.

¶57

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶58

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶59

BS /nd/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19

Sri.Nilesh N.Shah v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Nilesh N.Shah v. Karnataka State Financial Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thimmaiah N M Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri Ramachandra K Vs Smt Shalini Rajneesh

Sri C. Raghuram Dead by Lrs Smt R Manjula Devi Vs State of Kanataka

M/S Penna Cement Industries Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Siddharaju S Vs Smt. K.S. Jyothishree