IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.6917 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHAILAJA WIFE OF LATE NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HOUSE NO.15 2ND CROSS 1ST MAIN ROAD KAVERINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032 2. KUMARI N S THEJASHREE DAUGHTER OF LATE K NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST PETITIONER RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.15 2ND CROSS 1ST MAIN ROAD KAVERINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 032 (BY SRI. P M SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY M S BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK GANGANAGAR BRANCH BANGALORE – 560 032.
(BY SRI. MOHAN RAO, ADV. FOR R2 SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1) … PETITIONERS … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DTD: 30.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-C THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.P.M.Siddamallappa, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Smt.Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seeks a writ of ceritiorari for quashment of the impugned communication dated 30.01.2018 issued by respondent No.2 as well as a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to discharge the loan account No., availed by deceased K.Nagaraj and a direction to respondent No.2 to hand over the original title deeds.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are respectively the widow and daughter of late Mr.K.Nagaraj who had availed of the financial assistance from the respondent No.2-Bank. It is further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the entire amount due and payable to respondent No.2-Bank and on payment of such an amount, the respondent No.2 be directed to return the original title deeds.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited the attention of this Court to para 10 of the judgment passed in O.S.No.5264/2012 dated 08.07.2016 and has submitted that in the aforesaid judgment, petitioners have been held to be legal representatives of the deceased K.Nagaraj and therefore, the competent authority be directed to return the original title deeds. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that in the judgment dated 08.07.2016 passed in O.S.No.5264/2012 in para 10, the petitioners have been held to be one of the legal representatives. It is further submitted that in case the petitioners clear the entire dues, which are payable to respondent No.2-Bank, suitable action shall be taken to return the title deeds.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioners deposit the entire dues payable to the respondent No.2-Bank in respect of the loan facility availed by late K.Nagaraj within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, the respondent No.2-Bank thereafter within a period of two weeks shall return the title deeds of the property in question in favour of the petitioner. Needless to state that on returning the title deeds to the petitioners on payment of the amount due, the respondent No.2 shall be absolved of his liability. However, it will be open to the other legal representatives if so advised to make a claim against the petitioners, if so advised.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS