IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.12026/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
B. T. GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, R/AT NO.46, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, 5TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAMAPRAKASH N., ADV.) AND:
THE CHIEF MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, NO.69, 9TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M. MOHAN RAO, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 13.02.2017, AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS/TITLE DEEDS OF THE PROPERTY BEARING NO.47, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, 5TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the representation dated 13.02.2017 at Annexure-K and consequently direct the respondent to release the original documents relating to the property bearing No.47, 1st Main Road, 3rd Cross, 5th Stage, BEML Layout, Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bangalore-560 098.
2. The fact that the property referred to above is offered as a security in respect of the loan transaction with the respondent is not in dispute. However, the petitioner would submit that, in respect of the loan transaction, the major portion has been repaid and in that light, it is contended that the petitioner at no point in time was a defaulter in respect of the loan and in that circumstance, the petitioner not having created charge over the property in question, the documents are to be returned.
3. The respondent has filed the objection statement to the writ petition referring to the loan transaction and also to the extent of the amount still due to be paid. In that circumstance, it is contended that, when the property in question is given as security to the loan and the original title deeds are deposited, the claim as put forth by the petitioner would not justified.
4. Having taken note of the rival contentions, when it is seen that the petitioner has deposited the title deeds relating to the property in respect of the loan transaction which has been referred to in the petition as also the objection statement and when the entire amount has not been repaid, a direction to consider the representation and to return the documents would not arise.
5. However, if the petitioner seeks any other remedy from the respondent relating to the manner in which the appropriate security would still be retained to ensure that the remaining amount is paid and release a portion or one item of the property, that is a matter to be taken note by the respondent and take a decision at their discretion.
6. Hence, only to the said extent, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the respondent and if so made, the respondent would take note of the same and take a decision in accordance with law.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST