Dismissed

G.O.Devassikutty v. S.B.T. and Another

Kerala HC1 Mar 2010WP(C)/251/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought the release of a title deed for an agricultural loan that had been closed, citing a request made after closure. The respondent bank averred that because the petitioner still owed dues under a separate cash credit facility secured by a general lien, the title deed could not be released. The court held that the bank's lien remained valid and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release the title deed was denied; petition dismissed.

G.O.Devassikutty Vs S.B.T. and Another — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 251 of 2010(F)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

--------------------

¶8

G.O.DEVASSY KUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O OUSEPH, NJALIYAN HOUSE, NEELISWARAM, KALADY.

¶9

BY ADV. MR.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.AATHIRA T.DAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

-----------------------

¶12

1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REP.BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶13

2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶14

STANDING COUNSEL MR.SATHISH NINAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

JVT

¶17

T. R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J

¶18

W.P.(C.) No. 251 of 2010

¶19

Dated this the 01^st day of March 2010

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to release the title deed bearing No.3894/2003 of Sreemoolanagaram SRO in respect of 25 cents of land in Kalady village, which is kept as security in agricultural loan availed by the petitioner within a time frame.

¶22

The petitioner availed an agricultural loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the 1^st respondent during 2004. The original title deed in respect of 25 cents of property, as mentioned above was mortgaged for the purpose of the said loan. This was closed by him on 26/05/2009. Thereafter he requested for release of the title deed, but according to the petitioner the bank had been dragging their feet in the matter without any justification. Ext.P2

¶23

is the request made by him in this regard.

¶24

The bank has filed a statement as well as an additional

¶25

W.P.(C) No.251 of 2010

¶26

-2-

¶27

statement. It is averred in para 5 of the statement that the petitioner has availed a cash credit limit of Rs.20 lakhs from the bank and the said account has been recalled and approximately Rs.14,63,515/- is due under the said account. At the time of creation of mortgage in respect of the loan account that has been closed by him, it was agreed to by the petitioner as is evidenced from the Memorandum of Title Deeds dated 15.02.2004 that the equitable mortgage created by deposit of Title Deeds shall be held as security for any other credit facilities that may be granted to the petitioner by the Bank thereafter. According to them the bank has a right of lien over the Title Deed in question. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.834 of 2008. In the additional statement, it is mentioned that as on 25.01.2010, an amount of Rs.14,79,952/is due. Though the two items of properties namely 4.05 Ares and 21.85 Ares of land are furnished as security, the security available for the bank as evidenced by Ext.R1(a) is not liable to be released when the debt is outstanding with the bank.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶29

W.P.(C) No.251 of 2010

¶30

-3-

¶31

other properties are substantial properties which are valuable also. Therefore the bank can release the title deed of 25 cents.

¶32

The learned Counsel for the bank submitted that only if the petitioner fulfills obligation under the present loan then alone the bank will be able to release the title deed.

¶33

In Writ Appeal No.834 of 2008 in similar circumstances it was held by this Court that for the subsequent facilities offered by the Bank, it can keep the security by exercising banker's lien.

¶34

In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot succeed in this writ petition. The same is dismissed. No costs.

¶35

T. R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

¶36

Jvt

G.O.Devassikutty v. S.B.T. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.O.Devassikutty v. S.B.T. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.M.Kurian Vs Sri.T.Balakrishnan

V.Vijayan Menon Vs the Dist. Collector, Thrissur & Others

K.K.Hassan and Another Vs Union of India & Others

University of Calicut Vs Misha K. & Others

Sankunthala and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

Omana Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam