IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18741 of 2009(K)
1. SEBASTIAN.C.S., AGED 46 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent
2. THE SOCIETY FOR INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT
For Petitioner :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
For Respondent :SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :10/07/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C)s.18741, 9118 & 9109/2009
--------------------
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
The issue involved in all these writ petitions relates to
an alleged obligation on the part of the 1st respondent to
return the title deeds to the petitioners who availed a
housing loan from the 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent had
availed a re-financing facility from the 1st respondent.
There is a dispute as to whether the facility so availed by
the 2nd respondent from the 1st respondent is with the
consent of the petitioners. Be that as it may, according to
the petitioners, they have repaid the loan amount and they
are entitled to treat the loan account as closed and
therefore, redeem the title deeds. According to the 1st
respondent, 2nd respondent obtained a financing facility
from the 1st respondent and unless the 2nd respondent pays
the amount due to the 1st respondent, the account is entitled
to be treated as alive and the documents of title relating to
the loan can be retained.
2. This issue has been considered by this Court in Writ
W.P.(C).18741/09 & Connected Cases
2
Petition No.21157/2006. This Court took the view that a
contract which was entered into by the 1st and 2nd
respondents, cannot offer justification for the 2nd
respondent not returning the title deeds deposited by the
loanees. It is open to the 1st and 2nd respondents to resolve
the dispute among themselves. It was also observed that a
public sector undertaking like the 1st respondent had
chosen to accept the title deeds of beneficiaries like the
petitioners without their consent and if that had been done,
it is resultant upon a mistake, which they cannot take
advantage of. 1st respondent was directed to return the title
deeds deposited by the petitioners with the 2nd respondent.
Title deeds had to be returned to the 2nd respondent in the
first instance who shall hand over the same back to the
respective owners.
3. This view was later followed in W.P.(C)s.7961/2008 &
29934/2008. The facts involved in the present case are
similar. Accordingly, having heard learned counsel on both
sides, writ petitions are disposed of directing the 1st
W.P.(C).18741/09 & Connected Cases
3
respondent to return the title deeds deposited by the
respective petitioners with the 2nd respondent, to the 2nd
respondent in the first instance. This shall be done on
production of a copy of this judgment before the 1st
respondent. On receipt of the said title deeds, 2nd
respondent shall under due acknowledgment, return the
same to the respective owners without any delay.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs
