THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16093 OF 2011 DATED: 24.08.2011 Between: Smt. Darimireddy Ganga Bhavani .. Petitioner And Union Bank of India and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16093 OF 2011 ORDER : The petitioner’s husband by name D. Ramu availed a house loan from the Union Bank of India in the year 2005. He died on 28.04.2011. After his death, the petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent that a sum of Rs.5,46,194/- was outstanding in the loan account. The petitioner had cleared the entire outstanding amount on 30.05.2011 and requested the 2nd respondent to return the original title documents. However the petitioner’s request was not considered on the ground that a sum of Rs.5,02,452/- was outstanding against the vehicle loan availed by the petitioner’s husband. The said amount was also paid by the petitioner on 1.6.2011 and no due certificates dated 30.05.2011 and 1.6.2011 were issued by the 2nd respondent. In spite of the same, as the respondents refused to release the title deeds of the house property, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not returning the original documents is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the fact that the writ petitioner had cleared the arrears of loan account of her husband has not been disputed. However it is explained that the Bank had also received a claim from the brother’s son of the deceased on the ground that he was the adopted son of the deceased and that he had performed the last rites of the deceased. On enquiry, it was found by the respondents that the writ petitioner had earlier married to another person and through him she had two issues and that subsequently she divorced him and was living with the deceased. Therefore the documents were withheld and the writ petitioner was asked to get a legal heir certificate/succession certificate from the competent court or authority. It is also stated that as per the administrative instructions by the legal cell, the respondents can release the original documents on verification of identification proof and on being satisfied about the bona fides of an individual and on execution of Indemnity Bond. However wherever there is a dispute or a third party claim by the other members of the family, it is necessary to insist upon production of legal heir certificate / succession certificate. The allegation in the writ petition that the 2nd respondent had insisted the petitioner to clear the entire loan amount has been denied and it is stated that the petitioner was anxious for release of the documents and that she had on her own paid the entire loan amount. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Admittedly the loan was availed by one D. Ramu, who is no more. The title deeds of the immovable property which were hypothecated stood in the name of the deceased. It may be true that the petitioner had cleared the entire loan amount, however the petitioner could not produce any material to show that she is the legal heir of the deceased. Moreover there are rival claims. Hence, the action of the respondents in insisting upon production of legal heir certificate/succession certificate cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. It is apparent from the material placed before this Court that the petitioner’s claim that she is the only legal heir to the deceased is in dispute. Therefore the mere fact that the petitioner has paid the loan amount does not entitle her to claim the return of the title deeds. Hence, the Writ of Mandamus as prayed for cannot be issued. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 24.08.2011 gbs