IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18741 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SEBASTIAN.C.S., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHAURIAR, CHEMMARAPALLIL HOUSE, KOOVAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 518. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (HUDCO), 3RD FLOOR, SAPHALYAM COMPLEX, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM-34, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. 2. THE SOCIETY FOR INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT ACTION (SIDA), REG.NO.K.29/84, KOOVAPPALLY P.O., 686 518, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL DIRECTOR, SRI.GEORGE THOMAS. ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE FOR R2 SRI.C.R.SYAM KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 9118 OF 2009 WPC NO. 9109 OF 2009 ,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s.18741, 9118 & 9109/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The issue involved in all these writ petitions relates to an alleged obligation on the part of the 1st respondent to return the title deeds to the petitioners who availed a housing loan from the 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent had availed a re-financing facility from the 1st respondent. There is a dispute as to whether the facility so availed by the 2nd respondent from the 1st respondent is with the consent of the petitioners. Be that as it may, according to the petitioners, they have repaid the loan amount and they are entitled to treat the loan account as closed and therefore, redeem the title deeds. According to the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent obtained a financing facility from the 1st respondent and unless the 2nd respondent pays the amount due to the 1st respondent, the account is entitled to be treated as alive and the documents of title relating to the loan can be retained. 2. This issue has been considered by this Court in Writ W.P.(C).18741/09 & Connected Cases 2 Petition No.21157/2006. This Court took the view that a contract which was entered into by the 1st and 2nd respondents, cannot offer justification for the 2nd respondent not returning the title deeds deposited by the loanees. It is open to the 1st and 2nd respondents to resolve the dispute among themselves. It was also observed that a public sector undertaking like the 1st respondent had chosen to accept the title deeds of beneficiaries like the petitioners without their consent and if that had been done, it is resultant upon a mistake, which they cannot take advantage of. 1st respondent was directed to return the title deeds deposited by the petitioners with the 2nd respondent. Title deeds had to be returned to the 2nd respondent in the first instance who shall hand over the same back to the respective owners. 3. This view was later followed in W.P.(C)s.7961/2008 & 29934/2008. The facts involved in the present case are similar. Accordingly, having heard learned counsel on both sides, writ petitions are disposed of directing the 1st W.P.(C).18741/09 & Connected Cases 3 respondent to return the title deeds deposited by the respective petitioners with the 2nd respondent, to the 2nd respondent in the first instance. This shall be done on production of a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent. On receipt of the said title deeds, 2nd respondent shall under due acknowledgment, return the same to the respective owners without any delay. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs