IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTY DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18026 of 2007 Between: U.Chandra Sekhara Rao, S/o. Veeraswamy, R/o. Door No.14-40-57, Mattan Bazar, Morrispet,Tenali, Guntur Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P State Corporation Houisng Federation Ltd, Rep.by its Managing DIrector Bagh Lingampalli Hyd 2 The Viswanadha Coop. Building Society Ltd, Rep.by its Special Officer, Tenali,Guntur Dist .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ one in the nature of Mandamus of the respondents in returning the title deeds deposited with the respondents in connection with the housing loan as arbitrary illegal and consequently direct the respondents to return the title deeds deposited with the respondents in connection with the loan A.C. No.21/84/GTR, since the entire loan amount was repaid besides ordering the respondents to pay such compensation as deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstance of the case and pass such other relief Counsel for the Petitioner:DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for Respondents: MR.ARAVINDU MATURI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18026 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.45,000/- towards housing loan in the year 1985 from Viswanadha Co-operative Building Society Limited, the 2nd respondent. The amount, in turn, was made available by the A.P. State Co-operative Housing Societies Federation Limited, the 1st respondent. Certain documents relating to the property owned by the petitioner were deposited as security with the 1st respondent. The petitioner states that the last instalment was paid by him on 25.03.2000, and despite the same, the documents are not released. 2. The 2nd respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit stating that the petitioner has not cleared the loan amount and still a sum of Rs.54,000/- is due. On the same lines, the 1st respondent also filed a counter affidavit. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. There is a serious dispute as to whether the petitioner has cleared the loan. Had it been a case where the amount was paid by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent and there was any default on the part of the 2nd respondent in passing on the amount to the 1st respondent, this Court would have directed for refund of the documents, leaving it open to both the Societies to resolve their disputes. The 2nd respondent ﬂatly denied the averment of the petitioner that the loan amount was cleared. Though, in his report, dated 27.10.2006, the District Cooperative Society Oﬃcer, Guntur, mentioned that the petitioner had cleared the amount, deﬁnite ﬁndings need to be recorded in this regard, after giving an opportunity to both parties before an appropriate forum. 5. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to workout his remedies under Section 71 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. In case the claim is presented within four weeks from today, it shall be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 05.11.2008 v v