Disposed

M.U.Paul v. the State Bank of India

Kerala HC19 Mar 2019WP(C)/6062/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought release of mortgage documents from the First Respondent bank after separating from his wife and executing a settlement deed. The bank refused pending notice to the former spouse. The High Court of Kerala ordered the bank to verify documents within six weeks and release them if the petitioner is entitled, leaving the necessity of notice to the former wife o

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Bank to verify petitioner's documents and decide on release within six weeks, with liberty to issue notice to former wife if required.

M.U.Paul Vs the State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 6062 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M.U.PAUL AGED 67 YEARS S/O.URUMEES, MOONJELI HOUSE, CHAKKINGAL ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682025.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, PALARIVATTOM BRANCH, PALARIVOTTAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682025, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶11

2 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,

¶12

THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, PALARIVATTOM, PALARIVOTTAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682025.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.JITESH MENON, SC, SBI

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 6062 of 2019

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Petitioner and his wife one Marykutty Paul were owners of a property, which was mortgaged before the 1^st respondent bank for securing a loan. The entire loan amount is paid. However, the document is not returned to the petitioner, is the case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition. Apparently, it seems the marriage of the petitioner with Marykutty Paul is terminated as per the proceedings of the Family Court. The parties have agreed to divide the properties, and on the basis of an agreement, a settlement deed is executed namely settlement deed No.129/2018 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Maradu Ernakulam District. Therefore, according to the petitioner, when the petitioner approached the 1^st respondent bank, the bank is duty bound to release document to the petitioner in terms of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties. However, the bank is insisting for the address of his former wife, in order to issue notice and then adjudicate the issue. It is thus seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition is filed.

¶19

A statement is filed by the bank, justifying its stand for not releasing the documents to the petitioner, since the bank is not satisfied, whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the

¶20

WP(C).No. 6062 of 2019

¶21

¶22

documents from the bank, since it is a co-ownership property mortgaged by the parties for securing loan.

¶23

I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the

¶24

Bar and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶25

The case put forth by the petitioner is that, petitioner has every documentary proof to show that petitioner is entitled to receive the documents from the bank, consequent to the settlement arrived at by and between the petitioner and Marykutty Paul.

¶26

In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and the bank is at liberty to verify the documents produced by the petitioner, with respect to his right to receive the document consequent to the settlement entered into by and between the parties. The 1^st respondent will also be at liberty to evaluate whether a notice is to be issued to the former wife of the petitioner and if that is required, the liberty of the bank is left open. Any how, the bank will have to take a decision in the matter within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and if it is found that, petitioner is entitled to receive the document, the same shall be released forth with

¶27

WP(C).No. 6062 of 2019

¶28

¶29

and without any delay.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Jm/

WP(C).No. 6062 of 2019

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.129/2018 OF S.R.O MARADU EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15.01.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY MARYKUTTY PAUL IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15.01.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM IN O.P.NO.1151/2017 DATED 22.01.2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 29.11.2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 02.01.2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11.01.2019. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.12.2017.

M.U.Paul v. the State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.U.Paul v. the State Bank of India

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

K R Girijhan Vs the Superintending Engineer

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Pts Hitech Projects India Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Prince T.Antony Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority(Gcda)

Dr.Mohammed Sadique K.P. Vs the Chief Election Commission of India

Sultan Thomas Oommen Vs District Collector