Disposed¶75

M.Umpathy, v. The General Manager

Madras HC25 Aug 2025WP/19880/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Return/release of mortgage title deed by co-operative bank after full loan repayment; missing legal heir (M.Perumal, FIR No. 747/2011); no-objection letters from surviving heirs; indemnity bond and affidavit by legal heirs; Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; George Town Co-operative Bank; loan A/c No.9510; Nagammal; eight-week direction to return original documents; impleadment of legal heirs by order dated 28.03.2025 in WMP.No.10776 of 2017; Madras High Court; disposed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to return the original title documents mortgaged under loan A/c No.9510 to the petitioner within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition disposed of with the above observations and direction; no costs. ¶75

M.Umpathy, Vs The General Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP.No.19880 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE N. MALA

¶6

WP.No.19880 of 2016

M.Umpathy,

Petitioner

1.The General Manager (Incharge), George Town Co-operative Bank, No.2/62, Krishnappa Agraharam Street, Chennai-79.

¶11

2.The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, M.V.Natarajan Maaligai, No.170, Periyar E.V.R.Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

3.Tmt.M.Kuppammal,

4.Tmt.S.Rathika,

5.M.Rajesh,

6.M.Durai Babu,

7.M.Perumal, (Since Missing), S/o.K.Munuswamy.

¶17

1/9

¶18

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

¶19

WP.No.19880 of 2016

¶20

8.Mr.Dilli Babu,

¶21

9.Tmt.Sundari, W/o.Late Mr.Ramu, No.293, P.B.Garden, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. (R3 to R9 are impleaded as per order dated 28.03.2025 in WMP.No.10776 of 2017 in W.P.No.19880 of 2016)

¶22

...Respondent(s)

¶23

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in respect of the letter of the first respondent dated 22.04.2016, quash the same and consequently directing the first respondent herein to release the title deed of the petitioner's grandmother Tmt.Nagammal which is mortgaged under loan A/c No.9510 of the respondents and pass such further orders.

¶24

For Petitioner(s): M/s.M.Baskaran

¶25

For Respondent(s): M/s.S.Ravi for R1

¶26

Mr.B.Tamil Nidhi, Additional Government Pleader for R2

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified

¶29

Mandamus, calling for the records in respect of the letter of the first respondent

¶30

2/9

¶31

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

¶32

WP.No.19880 of 2016

¶33

dated 22.04.2016, quash the same and consequently directing the first

¶34

respondent herein to release the title deed of the petitioner's grandmother

¶35

Tmt.Nagammal which is mortgaged under loan A/c No.9510 of the respondents.

¶36

The petitioner is the grandson of Tmt. Nagammal, who owned a house property at Door No.94 (Old No.58), Market Lane, Santha Narayanan Koil Street, Kalmandapam, Royapuram, Chennai – 13, measuring about 400 sq.ft. During her lifetime, Nagammal had mortgaged the property and availed a loan under A/c No.9510 from the respondent bank. After her death on 05.07.2006, her legal heirs were Mr. Perumal, Mrs. R. Sundari, and Mr. M. Mohan (the petitioner’s father). Mr. Mohan passed away on 09.11.2010, and Mr. Perumal went missing in 2011 (FIR No. 747/2011 dated 11.06.2011). The petitioner and his family settled the entire loan amount and also paid Rs.5 lakhs as amicable settlement to Dillibabu (Perumal’s son) and Tmt. Sundari, who thereafter gave their no objection for releasing the title deed. Despite submitting all supporting documents and offering to execute an indemnity bond, the bank refused to

¶37

release the title deed, citing the need to protect the interest of the missing legal

¶38

3/9

¶39

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

¶40

WP.No.19880 of 2016

¶41

heir. The petitioner’s request was formally rejected by letter dated 22.04.2016.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the refusal to release

¶43

the title deed despite full loan repayment, submission of legal heir certificates,

¶44

FIR copy, no objection letters from surviving legal heirs, and willingness to provide an indemnity bond is arbitrary and unjust. He argues that the interests of all heirs, including that of the missing Mr. Perumal, have been sufficiently addressed, especially since his son Dillibabu has given no objection. He asserts

¶45

that the impugned order dated 22.04.2016 is illegal and contrary to law and seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the same and direct the

¶46

respondent to release the original title deed of the mortgaged property.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the loan

¶48

borrowed by Nagammal, grandmother of the petitioner, who passed away, leaving behind three legal heirs -the petitioner's father, his uncle, and his aunt.

¶49

The petitioner's uncle went missing in the year 2011, and an FIR is also pending

¶50

before the respondent police in this regard. He further states that petitioner's father also passed away. A dispute arose among the legal heirs with respect to a

¶51

4/9

¶52

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

¶53

WP.No.19880 of 2016

¶54

1/3rd share in the property, including the petitioner's uncle. Subsequently, the

¶55

petitioner jointly paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, and the loan amount due on the land was cleared in the year 2008.

¶56

It is further submitted that the loan borrowed by the petitioner's

¶57

grandmother, Nagammal, was fully settled in 2008, and the legal heirs of Nagammal made a representation to the respondents seeking return of the original title deed of the property. However, the same has not yet been handed

¶58

over to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶59

Learned counsel has also filed a no-objection affidavit along with an

¶60

indemnity bond dated 23.04.2025, which has been served to the learned counsel

¶61

appearing for the first respondent, as well as the learned Additional Government

¶62

Pleader appearing for the second respondent.

¶63

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶64

In the present case, the loan was borrowed by the petitioner's

¶65

grandmother, Nagammal, who is now deceased. Her husband and the

¶66

5/9

¶67

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

¶68

WP.No.19880 of 2016

¶69

petitioner's father are also no more. The legal heirs include two sons and one

¶70

daughter. An indemnity bond has been executed by Perumal, the son of the missing son, along with an affidavit dated 24.04.2025 by the legal heirs of the

¶71

deceased, Nagammal.

¶72