Dismissed¶47

Mr. Arthur Joseph Pinto v. Managing Director and Ceo.

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2026WA/1683/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Union Bank of India; return of original title deeds; Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 14.03.2013; co-borrower Mrs Clara F. Pinto deceased; disputes among legal heirs; No Objection Certificate; letter of authority; indemnity bond; O.S. No.4025/2022; Corporation Bank loan accounts TLA 07-0212269010000001, AGRTL - 560931000383684, AGRTL - 560931000383927; writ appeal dismissed; Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act; W.P. No.37547/2025.

What did the court decide?

The title deeds were deposited as security for loans availed by the appellant and his mother, late Mrs Clara F. Pinto, as co-borrower; on her death her interest devolved upon her legal heirs, and the Bank therefore required a No Objection Certificate or letter of authority from the other legal heirs before releasing the deeds. ¶34

Mr. Arthur Joseph Pinto Vs Managing Director and Ceo. — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent Bank was justified in declining to hand over the original title deeds to the appellant alone and in requiring a No Objection Certificate or letter of authority from the other legal heirs of the deceased co-borrower, Mrs Clara F. Pinto. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

¶34

Ratio / Principle

This Court found no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition.

¶40

Key takeaways

The Court declined to issue directions to respondent No.2 Bank to deposit the original title deeds before the Court in O.S. No.4025/2022, observing that the appellant is not precluded from seeking such directions from the Court trying that suit.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (GM-RES) dismissed. Arthur Joseph Pinto appealed against the order dated 02.06.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.37547/2025 rejecting his petition seeking directions to Union Bank of India to return original title deeds deposited under a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 14.03.2013 by the appellant and his late mother, Mrs Clara F. Pinto, as co-borrowers. The Bank had declined to release the deeds to the appellant alone because the deceased co-borrower's interest devolved upon her legal heirs, among whom disputes were pending (suit O.S. No.4025/2022), and it required a No Objection Certificate or letter of authority from the other heirs. The Division Bench (Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice; K.S. Hemalekha, J.) found no infirmity in the impugned judgment; it declined to direct the Bank to deposit the title deeds before the Court trying O.S. No.4025/2022, observing that the appellant remains free to seek such directions from that Court. Appeal dismissed with these observations.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34593-DB WA No. 1683 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO.1683 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

MR. ARTHUR JOSEPH PINTO AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/O LATE B F PINTO, R/AT NO.1, WARE ROAD, FRASER TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 005.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO., UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶18

THE GENERAL MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003.

¶19

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA, CHEEKANAHALLI BRANCH,

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34593-DB WA No. 1683 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BELUR-MUDEGERE ROAD, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN - 573 115.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF WRIT PETITION NO.37547/2025; ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/06/2026 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.37547/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶29

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 02.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.37547/2025 (GM-RES) [ impugned order ]. The appellant had filed the said petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent No.2 (Union Bank of India) to return the original title deeds submitted by the appellant at the time of availing loans under Account Nos.(i) - TLA 07-0212269010000001, (ii) AGRTL - 560931000383684 and (iii) AGRTL - 560931000383927 from the Corporation Bank (now part of Union Bank of India).

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34593-DB WA No. 1683 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

It is the appellant's case that the original title deeds to the subject property had been deposited pursuant to a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 14.03.2013. The said memorandum indicates that the title deeds were deposited by the appellant and his mother, the late Mrs Clara F. Pinto. The appellant claims that the loan accounts have been fully settled and therefore, the original title deeds should be returned to him exclusively.

¶33

Respondent No.2 Bank has declined to do so, on the ground that disputes were pending among the legal heirs of the deceased, including with regard to the subject property and therefore, the original title deeds, which were also deposited by appellant’s mother, cannot be returned to the appellant alone.

¶34

There is no dispute that the title deeds were deposited as security for the loans availed by the appellant and his mother, late Mrs Clara F. Pinto, who was a co-borrower. Concededly, the title deeds were required to be returned to the said borrowers. However, as Mrs. Clara F. Pinto has since expired, her interest has devolved upon her legal heirs, and therefore, the respondent Bank required the appellant to produce a No Objection Certificate or letter of authority from the other legal heirs to enable it to release

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34593-DB WA No. 1683 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

the original title deeds. Since disputes are pending among the legal heirs of the late Mrs Clara F. Pinto, the appellant has not been able to furnish such a No Objection Certificate or authorisation from the other legal heirs of the late Mrs Clara F Pinto.

¶38

In the aforesaid context, the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition while reserving the liberty to the appellant to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the other heirs and collect the title deeds by executing an indemnity bond in favour of respondent No.2 Bank.

¶39

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that a suit (O.S. No.4025/2022) is pending between the family members and therefore, respondent No.2 Bank may be directed to deposit the original title deeds before the concerned Court.

¶40

We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

¶41

Insofar as the appellant's prayer that directions be issued to respondent No.2 Bank to deposit the original title deeds before the Court in O.S. No.4025/2022 is concerned, we do not consider it apposite to issue any such directions. However, the appellant is not

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:34593-DB WA No. 1683 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

precluded from seeking such directions from the Court trying O.S.

¶46

No.4025/2022.

¶47