THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.1006 of 2002 ORDER : This Writ is filed assailing the action of the respondent bank in allegedly retaining the title deed of the petitioner in respect of her land of an extent of Acs.1.08 cents in R.S.No.18-1-94, situated at Ponangi Village, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District and to direct the respondent bank to release the said title deed. The petitioner in her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition avers that she is the owner of the land referred to above. She obtained crop loan of Rs.3,000/- and deposited the aforementioned title deed. She claims that the loan was repaid in the year 1997 and discharged her liability. Despite the same, the petitioner alleges, that the respondent bank, though obligated to return the title deed, has not returned the document. She states that as her efforts to get the document released through the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, West Godavari District and despite a legal notice dated 19-02- 2001, as she failed to get the response, she field this Writ Petition. The respondent filed counter stating that the document is not liable to be returned as the same was deposited as security in a loan transaction of the son of the petitioner. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner’s son D.Subba Raju availed a term loan facility for the sum of Rs.95,000/- and executed a promissory note. In respect of the said loan, the petitioner being the mother voluntarily deposited her title deed and created equitable mortgage to secure the loan amount. The borrower committed default whereupon a suit was filed in O.S.No.514 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. At one point of time the suit was decreed ex parte, however the same was set aside and the suit after restoration was posted for trial on 24-06-2002. It is contended that as the document has been deposited in respect of a loan availed by the son as security, the respondent is under no obligation to return the document. Heard both the parties. The learned counsel Sri Santosh Kumar, representing Sri Dadomar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner has nothing to do with the loan obtained by her son and in fact she has been living separately, as such the respondent cannot fasten any liability on the petitioner. He further contended that the petitioner did not sign either as a guarantor or as a surety for the loan obtained by her son. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid contentions. The contention of the petitioner that she is living separately is irrelevant. The respondent has categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that a suit O.S.No.514 of 1999 has already been filed to recover the loan amount advanced to the petitioner’s son. It is categorically stated in the counter affidavit that after the initial ex parte decree, on application filed by the petitioner and her son, the ex parte decree was set aside. The document has been detained and filed in the Court. The petitioner has not traversed this statement by any rejoinder. In view of the specific averment that the document is concerned with the loan obtained by the petitioner’s son and filed in the Civil Court, the petitioner is not entitled for the return of the document. It appears that the petitioner sought for the return of the document by raising a consumer dispute in C.D.No.36 of 2001 and the same was also dismissed. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 26th March, 2010. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.1006 of 2002 Date : 26-03-2010 Between : Dheeguti Gangajalam .. Petitioner And The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Ponangi Branch, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District. .. Respondent