IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 OP.No. 24351 of 2002(R) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- D.RADHAMMA, "SREEVILAS", HOSPITAL ROAD, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR SRI.K.JAJU BABU SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KOCHI-31. 2. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SHERISTADAR, DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 24351/2002. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NON-LIABILITY CERTIFICATE DT. 20-10-2000. EXT.P2 COPY OF LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE. EXT.P3 REPRESENTATION DT. 25-11-2000. EXT.P4 LETTER DT. 5-1-2001. EXT.P5 LETTER DT. 5-6-2001 EXT.P6 LETTER DT. 12-10-2001. EXT.P7 REPRESENTATION DT. 4-2-2002 EXT.P8 REPRESENTATION DT. 4-2-2002. EXT.P9 REPRESENTATION DT. 5-2-2002. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT. EXT.P11 LETTER DT. 30-11-2004. EXT.P12 LETTER DT. 25-1-2005. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 24351 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the widow of Sri. K.K. Pankajakshan Pillay, who was a Panel Receiver of the Munsiff's Court, Cherthala. The said Pakajakshan Pillai died on 16-12-1988. Sri. K.K. Pankajakshan Pillay was appointed as a Panel Receiver of the Munsiff's Court, Cherthala on execution of a bond, which is Ext. P10, in accordance with which he furnished the property mentioned therein as security for the due performance of his duties as a Panel Receiver. According to the petitioner, along with Ext. P10, the original title deed of the property mentioned in Ext. P10 was also deposited before the District Court, Alappuzha. Subsequently, after the death of the said Sri. K.K. Pankajakshan Pillay, the legal heirs of Sri. K.K. Pankajakshan Pillay approached the District Court for return of the title deed and the release of the security documents. The same was not done because neither the original of Ext. P10 nor the original of the title deed was available anywhere, either in the District Court or in the Munsiff's Court. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd and 3rd respondents to return to the petitioner and her two sons forthwith the original title deed of the property belonging to her late husband produced as security at the time of his appointment as Panel Receiver. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext. P9, the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext. P7 and the 3rd respondent to dispose of Ext. P8 within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent-High Court, wherein the stand taken is that neither Ext. P10 nor the title O.P. No. 24351/2002 -: 2 :- deed was found filed before the District Court as contended by the petitioner. It is also stated that in spite of elaborate search, the same could not be traced out. In the above circumstances, the 1st respondent would conclude that Ext. P10 or the title deed mentioned therein was not deposited by K.K. Pankajakshan Pillay before the District Court as claimed by the petitioner. 3. After hearing, I am not inclined to accept the version of the 1st respondent that Ext. P10 was never produced before the District Court. The only purpose Sri. K.K. Pankajakshan Pillay to execute Ext. P10 is to produce it before the District Court for being appointed as a Panel Receiver. It is not disputed before me that K.K. Pankajakshan Pillay was appointed as a Panel Receiver. Therefore, without production of Ext. P10 and the title deed before the Court, the Court could not have validly appointed K.K. Pankajakshan Pillay as a Panel Receiver. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the version of the petitioner that K.K. Pankajakshan Pillay had filed Ext. P10 security document and deposited the original of the title deed referred to therein with the court. Consequently, the respondents are liable to return the original title deed and to execute a release deed releasing the property from the liability created by Ext. P10 security document. From the letter dated 19-5-2009 from the District Judge, Alappuzha to the Registrar, High Court of Kerala, I find that the District Judge has agreed that release deed can be executed in favour of the petitioner as per the Rules, at her expenses. It is stated that the title deed is found nowhere and therefore the same cannot be returned to the petitioner. Now that the title deed is not traceable, a practical solution has to be found out for redressing the grievance of the petitioner in the matter. I am of opinion that the proper way of to do the same is to direct the 2nd respondent to endorse in a certified copy of the title deed that the original of the said document was deposited O.P. No. 24351/2002 -: 3 :- with the Court as security for performing the duties of Panel Receiver, that the original title deed was irrecoverably lost from the Court and that therefore the certified copy is being endorsed by the Court to enable the petitioner and other legal heirs to use the said certified copy as the original title deed for all legal purposes. The 2nd respondent should also execute a release deed releasing the property from the liability created by Ext. P10 security document. Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of the title deed mentioned in Ext. P10 before the 2nd respondent . The 2nd respondent shall endorse thereon the fact that the original of the title deed was deposited with the Court for the purpose of appointment of the owner of the property K.K. Pankajakshan Pillay as a Panel Receiver who is no more and that the same is irrecoverably lost. The 2nd respondent shall further endorse thereon that since the original document has been lost from the custody of the Court, the certified copy with the said endorsement thereon shall hereafter be treated as the original title deed of K.K. Pankajakshan Pillay by his legal heirs for all legal purposes. The 2nd respondent shall also, at the instance of the 2nd respondent, execute a release deed and get the same registered, releasing the property mentioned in Ext. P10 from the liability created under Ext. P10. The above exercise shall be taken up and completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/