IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19798 of 2009(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.P.MUHAMMOOD, S/O.LATE Y.M.ABDULKHADER, SHEHNAS MANZIL, C.P.ROAD, CHOKLI P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM SMT.GISA SUSAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, KANNUR BRANCH, FORT ROAD, KANNUR. 2. MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, THALASSERY BY ADV. MR.A.V.THOMAS, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 19798 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 22nd July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is that despite clearing the entire loan amount, the respondent Bank is not returning the title deeds in respect of the properties over which equitable mortgage was created at the time of availing the loan. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that when the petitioner turned to be a defaulter, the respondent Bank had approached the DRT for realisation of the due amount by filing O.A. 231 of 2006 and a decree was already passed in favour of the respondent Bank as borne by Ext. P1 which has become final. However, after considering the various facts and figures and the persuasive request made from the part of the petitioner and also other intermediaries including the tenants, who are occupying the premises, the liability was reduced to Rs.60 lakhs in pursuance of the compromise . It is W.P.(C) No. 19798 OF 2009 2 also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank that the petitioner cleared a portion of the said amount and that the balance amount was cleared by the tenants themselves. In any view of the matter, the fact remains that the liability of the petitioner under the loan transaction stands discharged and that there is absolutely no objection whatsoever for the Bank to return the title deeds. 3. Incidentally, the learned Counsel for the Bank brought it to the notice of this Court that there was absolutely no callous inaction or culpable delay in returning the title deeds, which was retained by the Bank only in view of the understanding among the parties concerned when the tenants chose to remit the due amount clearing the liability created by the petitioner, under which circumstance, the petitioner was instructed to bring it to the notice of the tenants as well, as to the release of the title deeds, which however was not chosen to be acted upon by the petitioner. It is also brought to light that the tenants have not approached the Bank by filing any petition nor have they instituted any suit before any court of law, to the knowledge of W.P.(C) No. 19798 OF 2009 3 the respondent Bank, to restrain them from releasing the title deeds to the petitioner . 3. In the above circumstances, the respondent Bank having conceded satisfaction of the due amount under the loan transaction is directed to return the title deeds of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment . The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk