High Court Kerala High Court

C.R.Sindu vs State Bank Of Travancore on 17 December, 2007

Kerala High Court
C.R.Sindu vs State Bank Of Travancore on 17 December, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 35703 of 2007(A)


1. C.R.SINDU ,AGED 36 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
                       ...       Respondent

2. AUTHORISED OFFICER( THE CHIEF MANAGER)

3. DR.P.L.REJITLAL, T.C. 61/2038

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.MANU

                For Respondent  :SRI.SATHISH NINAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :17/12/2007

 O R D E R
                         ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                   W.P.(C) No. 35703 OF 2007 A
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                Dated this the 17th December, 2007

                           J U D G M E N T

Proceedings have been initiated under the Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 against the property of which the 3rd respondent

is owner, he being the defaulter to the 1st respondent Bank.

Petitioner submits that she is residing in the property and that is is

only on account of a fraud played by the 3rd respondent that he got

the property in his name. Petitioner also submits that the 3rd

respondent is not interested in discharging the liability and

therefore she will discharge the liability, provided the Bank returns

the title deeds deposited by the 3rd respondent to her.

2. The 3rd respondent seems to be agreeable to the petitioner

discharging the liability. According to him, the title to the property

belongs to him and that if the liability to the Bank is settled, the

documents also should be returned to him.

WPC No. 35703/07 -2-

3. It is not in controversy that the amount is due to the 1st

respondent Bank and if that be so, the Bank cannot be faulted in

taking action against the property mortgaged. As far as the Bank is

concerned, the petitioner is a stranger and therefore the Bank will

not be in a position to release the title deeds to the petitioner unless

the 3rd respondent agrees to such a course. The 3rd respondent is

not in a mood to agree to such course of action and if that be so,

this Court will not be justified in compelling the bank to release

documents of title deposited by the 3rd respondent to the petitioner.

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-