Disposed

Mariamma John v. the Manager

Kerala HC18 Feb 2019WP(C)/1136/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the respondent bank to hand over the original sale deed. The court, noting the respondent's non-appearance, directed the bank to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the return of the document within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent bank to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's request for the return of the original sale deed within three weeks from the receipt of the judgment copy.

Mariamma John Vs the Manager — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 29TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1136 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MARIAMMA JOHN AGED 62 YEARS W/O. JOHN, VALLAMTHARAYIL, HOUSE NO. 9/143, AMBOORI P.O, KATTAKADA TALUK, FROM KOVILLOOR DESOM, KANNANNOOR, KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI SRI.P.E.SAJAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

THE MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK, AMBOORI BRANCH, KATTAKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 505.

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).No.1136/19

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:-

¶16

“To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondent to handover the original of Ext.P2 Sale Deed to the petitioner.”

¶17

Though notice was taken out to the respondent and duly served, there is no appearance for the respondent.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the request made by the petitioner in Exhibit P4 for return of original title deed is liable to be considered by the respondent without delay.

¶19

There will, accordingly, be a direction to the respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4 representation preferred by the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the respondent for compliance.

¶20

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶21

Sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

W.P.(C).No.1136/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 850/2008 DATED 04-06-2008 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONEER.

¶28

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY COVERED UNDER EXT. P1 DATED 19-03-2018

¶29

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2209/1995 DATED 15-11-1995 WHICH IS PRIOR DEED OF THE EXT.P1

¶30

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 28-09-2008 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK CERTIFYING THAT THE AMOUNT WAS REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶31

EXHIBIT P4

¶32

TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 10-122018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT TO RETURN THE DOCUMENT.

¶33

True copy

¶34

PS to Judge

Mariamma John v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariamma John v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas Kandanchery Vs State of Kerala

Jose.P.v., Vs the Divisional Forest Officer

Ravi Kulangara Vs the Secretary

Sreejith Vs the Principal Secretary

Rakhi P.V. Vs Rahul R.

Mr.Salil Gupta, Vs the Assistant Engineer