IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22714 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AYSHAMMA, AGED 58 YEARS D/O.SAITHU MUHAMMED, KADAVUKARA PURAYIDATHIL, KOOTTIKAL KARA, MUNDAKKAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (HUDCO) 3RD FLOOR, SAPHALAYAM COMPLEX PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM, 34 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. 2. THE SOCIETY FOR INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT ACTION (SIDA) REG. NO. K 29/84 KOOVAPPALLY PO 686 518, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL DIRECTOR. ADV. SUNIL JACOB JOSE FOR FOR R2 ADV. SRI. K.K. KURUP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 22714 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed of a housing loan from the 2nd respondent by depositing title deeds of her property as security for due repayment of the loan amount. The petitioner paid off the entire loan amount. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the title deeds of her property are not being returned by the 2nd respondent allegedly on the ground that the same have been re-deposited with the 1st respondent pursuant to a contract between the 2nd and 1st respondents. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has not entered into any contract with the 1st respondent and therefore the petitioner cannot be affected by the contract between respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner has also not agreed to deposit the title deeds of her property with the 1st respondent for any amount taken by the 2nd respondent from the 1st respondent. In the above circumstances, the petitioner seeks the following relief: “Issue a writ or order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the 1st respondent to return title deeds of petitioner's property within a time frame to be stipulated by this Honourable Court.” 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the 1st respondent and counsel for the 2nd respondent. 3. I am spared of considering the contentions of the parties on merits since the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a decision of mine viz. W.P(C) No. 7961/2008, which is produced as Ext. P3, in which, I had held as follows: “Petitioners in these writ petitions are borrowers of loan amounts from the 2nd respondent Society. According to them, they have repaid the entire amounts due under the loan account to the 2nd respondent. In spite of the same the 2nd respondent is not releasing the title deeds deposited by the petitioners as security for the loan taken by them from the 2nd respondent, is W.P.C. No. 22714/2010 -: 2 :- the grievance of the petitioners in these four petitions. 2. The 2nd respondent Society does not dispute the fact that the petitioners have already repaid the loan amounts taken by them. Their only contention is that they cannot release the title deeds because the title deeds have been deposited with the 1st respondent from whom the 2nd respondent taken the loan which only has been disbursed to the petitioners. 1st respondent would submit that as per the terms of the agreement between them and the 2nd respondent, they are entitled to retain the title deeds until the 2nd respondent pays off the amounts due. This question was the subject matter of a writ petition namely W.P(C) No. 21157/06. In that writ petition, while allowing a similar claim, a learned single Judge has even doubted the bona fides of respondents 1 and 2. In that writ petition there was a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to return the documents of the petitioner in that case. In view of that decision, I am satisfied that the petitioner in these writ petitions are also entitled to the same relief. Accordingly, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to release the title deeds of the properties belonging to the petitioners which have been deposited with the 2nd respondent as security for the loan amounts taken by the petitioners from the 2nd respondent. This shall be done within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” Following that judgment, the respondents are directed to release the title deeds of the properties belonging to the petitioner which have been deposited with the 2nd respondent as security for the loan amounts taken by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.