IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12251 of 2005 1. Bramhdeo Mahto S/o Late Dhamhan Mahto 2. Sudamiya Devi, wife of Bramhdeo Mahto 3. Vijay Kumar son of Shri Bramhdeo Mahto All of them are resident of village-Dhanakdob, P.S.- Ghoswari, District-Patna. ---------------------Petitioners Versus 1. State Bank of India, through its Assistant General Manager, Patna. 2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Aunta Branch Mokama Ghat, District-Patna. --------------Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: - Mr. Partha Sarthy, Adv. Mr. Utsav Kumar, Adv. For the State Bank of India:- Mr. Alok Kumar Choudhary, Adv. -------------- 4. 01.12.2011 Heard Mr. Partha Sarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the „Bank‟). The writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to return the original documents, that is, the sale deed of rent receipt with respect to immovable properties which the petitioners have deposited while obtaining a tractor loan. Learned counsel submits that the said loan account stood liquidated under „one time settlement‟ in the year 2000 and after that a request was made, by way of letter by an Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner on 4.9.2001 for return of 22 original sale deeds and 7 original rent receipts. Learned counsel relies upon Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which is an application 2 to the Branch Manager, Aunta, State Bank of India at Mokama on 28.6.1991 with a request to return the sale deeds so that it may be shown to the authorities doing survey work. Learned counsel relied merely on the endorsement made purportedly by a Bank official dated 28.6.1991 which states that all those documents are being deposited in the Bank. He submits that in view of the same, the respondents were obliged to return the original sale deeds since the loan amount stood liquidated. He further relies on the communication by the Bank to the petitioner dated 26.9.2001 which states that in view of the notice dated 4.9.2001 for return of title deeds, the documents were being searched in the office and a request was made for the petitioners to wait. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has filed his counter affidavit in which the following averments have been made in Paragraph 4, which is quoted hereinbelow. “4. That it is respectfully submitted that after conducting the intensive search of records of the case, it appears that no equitable mortgage by depositing the sale/title deed was created by the petitioner in favour of the bank. Neither original sale deeds of the land referred by the petitioner in the writ petition nor any document relating to creation of equitable mortgage have been found in the bank records. However, original rent 3 receipts (9 nos) of the land are kept in the bank records and the rent receipts which are available in the records are being produced before this Hon‟ble Court for delivering the same to the petitioner. However, if the petitioner produces any evidence indicating that it was deposited with the bank, the respondent bank will co-operate and take all possible steps for meeting grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law.” He is also present with the records of the case. He submits that since the original sale deeds were neither asked for nor submitted by the petitioner as no equitable mortgage has been created in favour of the Bank, there is no question of return of the same since it never came in the possession of the Bank. However, statement is made that if the petitioner can produce any evidence showing that it was deposited in the Bank, then all possible steps shall be taken for locating the same in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that the signature is too vague to identify as to whether such an endorsement has been made, since no copy was retained in the Bank or the original is in the Bank. He further submits that if the Court goes through the notice of the Advocate which was sent to the Bank on behalf of the petitioner dated 4.9.2001, which is much after the application dated 28.6.1991, there is no mentioning with 4 regard to such application being filed by the petitioner on which such endorsement is said to have been made. He submits that in this view of the matter, the veracity and authenticity of Annexure-1 is under doubt since it being the best proof which the petitioner had with regard to submission of the documents, ought to have been mentioned in the notice sent on 4.9.2001. This Court has also gone through the original records which have been produced. The records show that while the matter was being dealt with for grant of loan various documents were called for which included rent receipt but there is no mentioning of any original sale deed. Their copies were also never called for at various levels while processing the loan application as well as the deed of guarantee. The documents forwarded to the authorities are detailed in the copies kept in the records. From perusal of the same it also transpires that neither original sale deeds/copies of the same were ever annexed with nor submitted or came in the possession of the Bank. Whatever documents which are either referred to or relied upon have been noted down and there is no mentioning with regard to any sale deed either in the original or its copy. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also the fact as pointed out by learned 5 counsel for the Bank, the endorsement of the application of the petitioner dated 28.6.1991 which has not been referred to in the notice dated 4.9.2001 (as well as the subsequent notice dated 17.8.2002) which has been sent much latter, there is sufficient indication to prove the fact that the petitioner never submitted the original sale deeds to the Bank. However, learned counsel for the Bank has produced the original rent receipt which are nine in number. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds substance in the stand taken and submissions made by learned counsel for the Bank. The so called application dated 28.6.91 which carries the endorsement is neither reflected by the notice dated 4.9.2001 nor the notice dated 17.8.2002. In fact, in the notice dated 4.9.2001 also it is stated that the work of survey is going on and the original sale deeds are required whereas in the application dated 28.6.91 the same reason was given. Another aspect which is relevant is the fact that in the notice dated 4.9.2001, there is reference of 7 rent receipts which have also been stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition. However, from the records produced by the Bank, the number is nine. This Court has perused the original receipts and after going through the same it is evident that it is with regard to the 6 land of the petitioners. In this view of the matter also the Bank being in possession of 9 rent receipts in favour of the petitioners weakens the case of the petitioners on facts as it is not expected and is nobody‟s case that the Bank itself already had two original receipts with regard to the petitioners. However, since the original 9 rent receipts have been brought, this Court directs learned counsel for the Bank to hand over the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner after taking due receipt for the same. The same may be handed over by learned counsel for the petitioners to the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not feel inclined to issue any direction with regard to the return of the original sale deeds which is alleged by the petitioners to be in the custody of the Bank, for the reason that the Court is satisfied that the same were never produced nor submitted before the Bank at any point of time. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed off. This order shall however not preclude the petitioners from producing before the Bank any corroborative and reliable evidence which may go to prove that the said original sale deeds were given to the Bank and may still be in its custody. This Court also 7 directs that if such evidence is brought before the Bank concerned, they shall make genuine endeavor to locate the original sale deeds of the petitioners and return the same. The petitioners shall further be at liberty to move before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in the matter for any grievances with regard to non return of original sale deeds, which according to them, is in the possession of the Bank. The same shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law. Anand Kr. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)