The petitioner seeks reconveyance of a property, which the petitioner claims is not effected by the respondent, only for reason of the petitioner having not paid the charges for such reconveyance. The petitioner admittedly had availed of a loan from the respondent Bank. The petitioner having committed default, the Bank had proceeded against the petitioner for recovery and the property was brought to sale on 26.12.2005. The respondent Bank purchased the property in its own name and also obtained conveyance of the same. The sale was confirmed on 29.10.2006 and conveyance was obtained in favour of the respondent Bank on 5.12.2006. 2. Subsequently the petitioner was before this Court claiming reconveyance of the property, after 7 years and also contending that the petitioner is willing to pay the amount due in the loan account. The respondent Bank had agreed to settle the issue on payment of a certain sum. On receipt of the same it was also directed that the first respondent Bank shall reconvey the petitioner's property to him. Now the petitioner has sought for
W.P.(C)No.31006 of 2014
2
reconveyance without payment of any expenses.
3. The petitioner's contention is that the amount of expenses were not claimed by the Bank, at that point of time and that amounts due were quantified as per the statement of the Bank itself. It is to be noticed that the Bank merely agreed to settle the transaction for an amount which was quantified and this Court directed reconveyance of the property after such payment. The reconveyance definitely will have to be at the expense of the petitioner. The petitioner relies on the judgment in W.A.No. 182/2010 wherein the Bank was directed to remit Rs.20,00,000/- to the petitioner and the sale certificate was directed to be cancelled. That was a case in which the Bank was granted higher rate of compensatory interest by the Division Bench. In such circumstances, there can be no identity of facts found in the above judgment and the instant case. Nor is discernible any declaration of law in the aforesaid judgment, which has been rendered on the facts of the said case.
4. When reconveyance is ordered, it is not the Bank's responsibility, to bear the charges for such reconveyance. Looking at the facts of the case, the Division Bench in the judgment cited
W.P.(C)No.31006 of 2014
3
exercised discretion in so far as directing cancellation of the sale certificate. This Court is not inclined to exercise such discretion, since the stamp duty due to the State, on such reconveyance being effected, would definitely have to be paid by the petitioner who is the person who gets the benefits of such reconveyance.
For the above reasons the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit. The Bank shall, if the petitioner makes an undertaking, to bear the expenses, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, facilitate the reconveyance at the petitioner's expenses. If no undertaking is filed the sale confirmed in the name of the Bank shall not be disturbed and the petitioner shall be refunded the amounts paid pursuant to Ext.P1. The writ petition shall stand dismissed with costs to the respondent Bank quantified at Rs.5,000/-, which shall also be paid by the petitioner herein.
vpv Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE