IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34549 of 2010(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JUBINA SAGEER, D/O.MAJEED, AGED 32, KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, WEST KODUNGALLUR P.O., ALANGAD ROAD, ALUVA-10. BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.CHARLES, SRI.M.POLY MATHAI, SRI.P.CHELLAPPAN, SRI.HARI MENON, SRI.VIMAL K.CHARLES, SMT.A.T.RENJU RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-35. 2. SAGEER, S/O.ALIYAR, AGED 39, KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, MILLUPADI, MUPPATHADAM, ALUVA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.34549 of 2010-P ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the wife of the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had deserted her and the petitioner is living separated along with two school going children. The petitioner along with the 2nd respondent had availed two housing loans from the 1st respondent Bank, by creating mortgage of immovable property jointly owned by them. Consequent to default committed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent Bank had initiated coercive proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Under such circumstances, in order to save the property which is the residential house wherein the petitioner is living along with her children, the petitioner had made payment of the entire amounts due to the Bank. 2. Present grievance of the petitioner is that, inspite of settlement of payments and closing of the loan account, title deeds and other documents relating to the property in question W.P(C) No.34549 of 2010-P 2 is not returned to her by the 1st respondent, since the 2nd respondent is not giving consent for the same. Hence the petitioner is seeking direction to the 1st respondent to release the title deed and other documents. 3. Notice sent from this Court to the 2nd respondent was returned with postal endorsement as “Deposited for 7 days. No one came and return to sender”. It is evident that the property in question is in joint ownership of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner being a co- owner of the property, she can be entrusted with the documents or title. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to return the title deed and documents if any, pertaining to the immovable property mortgaged, on payment of amount if any due. Needful shall be done without any further delay. 5. It is made clear that the return of the title deed will not in any way cause any prejudice to the rights of co-ownership of the 2nd respondent in the property in question. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE