Allowed

T.Amminikutty v. the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC5 Sept 2016WP(C)/25913/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that since the petitioner repaid the mortgaged housing loan, the bank lacked the legal right to retain the title deeds. The court directed the bank to release the documents within one month, noting that pending recovery proceedings against an employee did not justify detention of the deed after loan discharge.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent Bank to release the mortgaged title deed to the petitioner within one month of receipt of this judgment.

T.Amminikutty Vs the Thiruvananthapuram District… — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/14TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 25913 of 2016 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

T.AMMINIKUTTY AGED 57 YEARS, W/O.LATE SRI.G.BALISON RESIDING AT WALGI HOUSE, KANAKA NAGAR, KOWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR

¶9

SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

R BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR, SC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.CO.OP.BANK

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 25913 of 2016 (L)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------------EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1636/2014 PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE RECEIPTS SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF THE AMOUNT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.3-12-15 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

¶17

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

¶18

// True Copy //

¶19

rmm P.A. To Judge

¶20

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶21

W.P.(C)No.25913 of 2016

¶22

Dated this the 5^th day of September, 2016

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent Bank to return the title deed of the property belonging to the petitioner, which was mortgaged against a loan and for other related reliefs.

¶25

Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

¶26

Petitioner's husband has availed a loan of

¶27

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) from the respondent Bank for the construction of the residential building. On 25.06.2007 petitioner's husband died. Petitioner defaulted the repayment of the loan amount. Consequent to which Bank has initiated action. According to the petitioner, subsequently the entire loan amount was wiped off, however, the Bank has not returned the title deed mortgaged for securing the loan. It is in this background, seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶28

W.P.(C)No.25913 of 2016 2

¶29

Respondent has filed a statement contenting

¶30

that, the writ petition is not maintainable since the transaction relates to defalcation of loan amount and by virtue of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in ' John v. Liquidator' [2006 (1) KLT 11]. Writ petition is not maintainable. That apart, it is contented that, even though the housing loan was wiped off, which was availed by petitioner's husband, Bank has instituted ARC No.190/2008 against the employee namely Balison before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram to recover an amount of Rs.15,89,050/-(Rupees fifteen lakh eight nine thousand and fifty only) with interest from 15.06.1996, which is pending consideration. Therefore, according to the respondent, the respondent is entitled to detain the title deed in view of the pending proceedings.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent Bank, perused the documents on records and pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶32

W.P.(C)No.25913 of 2016 3

¶33

It is an admitted fact that, petitioner has wiped

¶34

off the housing loan availed by petitioner's husband late Balison. Therefore, the title deed pertaining to the mortgage in respect of the housing loan is liable to be released by the 1^st respondent Bank. Unless and until the 1^st respondent Bank gets any order of attachment or any other proceedings enabling them to retain the mortgaged property, 1^st respondent is not entitled as of right to retain the title deed when the loan amount was wiped off by the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition, since the title deed is detained by the respondent without any legal right in its favour. Therefore, I direct the respondent to release the document to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶38

rmm // True Copy //

¶39

P.A. To Judge

T.Amminikutty v. the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Amminikutty v. the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

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

Anil Kumar Vs Sajjad

V.J.Sebastian Vs Sri.Mohanan Nambiar

James Josson Vs the Muvattupuzha Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd.

Kunjumol Vs Puthenchira Service Co-Operative Society

Noushad S. Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Prabhakaran .K. Vs the Secretary Regional Transport Authority