IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.8285/2018 (GM-RES) AND WRIT PETITION NO.13156/2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI.A.M.VASUDEVA, S/O LATE SRI.A.N.MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.99, 3RD FLOOR, CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA, BEHIND SHARADA TALKIES, S.P. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002.
2. SMT A R NAGARATHNA, W/O LATE SRI A M GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.99/1, 3RD FLOOR, CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA, BEHIND SHARADA TALKIES, S P ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI R B SADASIVAPPA, ADV. (ABSENT)) AND 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, NO.65, HEAD OFFICE, ST MARK’S ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, CAUVERY BHAVAN BRANCH, K G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
3. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESS ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH (SARB), 3RD FLOOR, BENGALURU CITY BRANCH, J C ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M K VENKATARAMANA, ADV. FOR R2 & R3; R1 SERVED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 TO RETURN THE ORIGINAL TITLE DEEDS OF THE PROPERTY BEARING NO.99, S.P. ROAD, BENGALURU WHICH WAS PLEDGED WITH THE BANK AS SECURITY FOR THE LOAN ACCOUNT NO.10356531192 WITHOUT CAUSING FURTHER DELAY IN THE MATTER AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None appeared for the petitioners.
2. Perused the records.
3. The petitions are admitted for hearing.
With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally.
4. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia are seeking a writ of Mandamus by directing respondent Nos.1 and 3 to return the original title deeds of the property bearing No.99, S.P.Road, Bengaluru, which was pledged with the bank as security for the loan account No.10356531192. The petitioners also seek direction to the respondent No.1 to take suitable action against the erring officers who are responsible for the delay in returning the documents to them.
5. After hearing learned counsel for parties, this Court vide order dated 17.06.2019, had directed the respondents - Bank to produce the certified copy of the sale deed. Thereafter, on 08.07.2019, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were granted a week’s time to file an affidavit with regard to the submission of certified copies of the documents produced from the Office of the Sub-Registrar and on the ground that the documents were placed by the father of the petitioner with the bank and the direction was issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to handover the certified copy of the sale deed to learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Admittedly, in compliance of the aforesaid order the certified copy of the sale deed has been returned to the learned counsel for the petitioners and an affidavit has been filed today, in which at paragraph No.5, it is stated that sale deed mortgaged by the petitioners father with the respondents - bank appears to have been lost during the process of merger of banks and the aforesaid act is not intentional but on account of the circumstance beyond the control of the officers of the respondents - bank the original sale deed has been lost.
7. For the aforementioned reason nothing survives for adjudication in these writ petitions.
8. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj