IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 27494 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THOMASKUTTY JOB, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY JOB, KARIMATTAM, RUBY NAGAR, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PAZHAMANNIL JESSY TOWERS, COLLEGE ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, KFC SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ, SC, KFC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 8-2-2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. W.P.(C)NO. 27494 of 2007 DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2006 JUDGMENT The prayer in the writ petition is for directing the respondents to release title deeds and other documents deposited by the petitioner and his family members in respect of item Nos, 1 to 3 in Ext.P1 on acceptance of balance payment and to direct the respondents not to initiate any steps for recovery before the release of title deeds in respect of the aforesaid properties. 2. The petitioner had availed of certain loans from the respondents and as security thereof, the petitioner had mortgaged various items of properties . Default was committed and recovery steps were initiated. It would appear that proposals were made by the petitioner for one time settlement(OTS). That was sanctioned in Ext.P1 in which there had been an agreement for partial release of WPC.27494/2007 -2- securities under OTS remittance. It is on the strength of Ext.P1, the petitioner seeks to have item Nos.1 to 3 therein to be released to the petitioner on payment of amount mentioned in Ext.P1. Ext.P1 itself shows that the petitioner was to remit the amount indicated in Ext.P1 on the date, which is also specified in Ext.P2. Admittedly the petitioner has not made payment in terms of the agreement between the parties. If that be so, nothing turns on Ext.P1 and it is too late for the petitioner to claim the benefit of Ext.P1. 3. In addition to this, respondents in their statement also have categorically stated that the petitioner has not remitted the amounts stipulated in Ext.P1 within the period mentioned therein. In view of this, I am not in a position to act upon Ext.P1 and issue the directions sought for by the petitioner. 4. Admittedly the properties are mortgaged to the respondents. So long as the liability remains as such, in WPC.27494/2007 -3- the absence of an agreement between the parties, this Court will not be justified for compelling the respondents to release few of the title deeds of the mortgaged properties, especially, when according to the respondents, the title deeds of the properties, which are sought to be released, are the valuable ones. In view of this, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as sought for. Needless to say that it will be open to the petitioner to file claim for OTS and if such proposal is made, it is open to the respondents to consider the same untrammeled by the observations contained in this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ks. K.R.UDAYABHANU,J. =================== CRL.A.NO. OF 200 JUDGMENT DATE: ......2006 =====================