THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22544 of 2007 Date: 08.02.2011 Between : N. Satyavathi … Petitioner and The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madhapur, Cyberabad and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22544 of 2007 ORDER : This writ petition has been filed to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to release the document No.2627/1992, dated 01.07.1992 given as security for the loan availed by the petitioner from the respondents-Life Insurance Corporation of India. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is the absolute owner of Plot No.93 in Sy.Nos.144/A, 144/AA, 146/A, 146/AA, 147/A, 147/AA and 153/A, admeasuring 200 square yards situated in Ramachandrapuram, Medak District, by virtue of a registered document No.2627/1992, dated 01.07.1992. She availed a loan of Rs.1,15,000/- for construction of the shops/building from the 2nd respondent-Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad along with her husband P. Rathan Gnanasundara Rao, who has been later divorced. As the petitioner defaulted in payment of instalments of the said loan, the 2nd respondent-Corporation instituted a suit O.S.No.6 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, Medak District, and obtained an exparte decree dated 20.12.2002. Pursuant to the said judgment and decree, the petitioner paid the entire amount to the 2nd respondent towards full satisfaction of the decretal amount. Inasmuch as the document No.2627/1992, dated 01.07.1992 was deposited towards security for the loan, the petitioner approached respondent Nos.1 and 2 through representations seeking the return of the said document. On failure of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to return it, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 3. Heard Sri Kesana Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though the 3rd respondent is served by substitute service, none appeared and there was no representation on his behalf. 4. Sri P. Rajasekhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 does not dispute that the document in question has been deposited as a security towards the loan sanctioned to the petitioner and that the said document was marked as an exhibit in O.S.No.6 of 2002. He also does not dispute that the entire decretal amount has been repaid and as a consequence thereof, the document in question is liable to be returned. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that the loan was jointly availed by the petitioner along with her husband, the 3rd respondent herein, and as such the respondents are awaiting his cooperation so as to avoid any future complications. 5. The said contention of the learned Standing Counsel does not commend the acceptance of this Court. It may be true that the loan was granted jointly in the name of the petitioner and her husband. But, the document in question, which was offered as a security, is admittedly standing in the name of the petitioner herself in respect of which the 3rd respondent has not set up any claim whatsoever. In fact, although the 3rd respondent was also a defendant in the suit O.S.No.6 of 2002, the decretal amount was satisfied by the petitioner only. Although the 3rd respondent is impleaded in the writ petition, notice was taken on him through substitute service by publishing the same in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Newspaper on 25.04.2010, the 3rd respondent remained exparte in these proceedings also. It is represented that both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent are separated by a decree of divorce by judgment and decree in O.P.No.454 of 2003, dated 25.03.2004. 6. In the cumulative circumstances as above, respondent Nos.1 and 2 can neither insist the cooperation of the 3rd respondent nor the consent of the 3rd respondent is required for release of the document in question in favour of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is no way concerned with the property covered by the document in question, nor he has got any claim towards the said property. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to release the mortgaged property document No.2627/1992, dated 01.07.1992 in favour of the petitioner as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 08.02.2011. NOTE: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.22544 of 2007 08.02.2011 (Msr)