Allowed

Thangaswamy. Sk v. The District Collector

Madras HC4 Jul 2024WP(MD)/9017/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a senior citizen, filed a writ seeking cancellation of a settlement deed executed in favor of his son, who had mortgaged and left the country. The son mortgaged the property again; petitioner paid to clear the loan but feared being left homeless. Court directed bank to return documents.

What did the court decide?

Directing the fourth respondent (Bank Branch Manager) to return the settlement deed (Document No.1030/2010) to the petitioner.

Thangaswamy. Sk Vs The District Collector — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.9017 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.9017 of 2024

S.K.Thangaswamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, O/o.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, G.H.Road, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

3.The Sub Registrar, O/o.The Sub Registrar, Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

4.The Branch Manager, Central Co-operative Bank, Uchippuli Branch, Ramanathapuram District.

¶14

5.T.Kannan

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/5

¶18

W.P(MD)No.9017 of 2024

¶19

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 herein to cancel the settlement deed in vide Document No. 1030/2010, which is executed by the petitioner in favour of fifth respondent who is the petitioners son, before the 3rd Office, consequentially direct the fourth respondent not to handed over the settlement deed in vide Document No. 1030/2010, which is mortgaged by the fifth respondent / petitioner's son, without petitioner's knowledge by considering petitioner's representations dated 08.03.2023, 21.11.2023 and 17.03.2023, in accordance with law, within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi For Respondents : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia Special Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3

¶21

Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi for R.4

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the

¶24

learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. The fifth respondent could not be served. He appears to have left for Malaysia.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2/5

¶27

W.P(MD)No.9017 of 2024

¶28

2.The petitioner is none other than the father of the fifth respondent. The petitioner had executed settlement deed in favour of his son / fifth respondent. The fifth respondent had mortgaged the property and without clearing the loan he had left India. The property was about to be brought to auction. It was the petitioner who cleared the mortgage liability. The mortgagee returned the document to the fifth respondent. Once again the fifth respondent mortgaged the property with the fourth respondent for a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs. He did not repay the loan. The property was brought to auction. At this stage, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs. The petitioner is a senior citizen. He states that he has no other place to stay. His apprehension is that if once again the document is returned to his son, he will once again mortgage the property and the petitioner will be left homeless.

¶29

3.Taking into account the special facts and circumstances of the case, the fourth respondent is directed to return the document to the petitioner herein. I grant this relief because it is the petitioner who had so for paid a sum of Rs.16,16,170/-.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

3/5

¶32

W.P(MD)No.9017 of 2024

¶33

4.This writ petition is allowed on these terms. There shall be no

¶34

order as to costs.

¶35

04.07.2024

¶36

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA

¶37

¶38

1.The District Collector, O/o.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶39

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer, G.H.Road, Ramanathapuram District.

¶40

3.The Sub Registrar, O/o.The Sub Registrar, Velipattinam, Ramanathapuram District.

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

4/5

¶43

W.P(MD)No.9017 of 2024

¶44

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶45

MGA

¶46

W.P(MD)No.9017 of 2024

¶47

04.07.2024

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

5/5

Thangaswamy. Sk v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thangaswamy. Sk v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangeetha Narayanan Vs The Commissioner of Land Administration

K.Ramalingam Vs Jeya

Panjavarnam Vs The Registrar (Birth and Death)

S.Kannan Vs The Additional Chief Forest Conservator

Pandian. P Vs The Director of Collegiate Education Department

Menolin Vs The Director