Loading...

Sebastian.C.S. vs The Housing And Urban Development on 10 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
Sebastian.C.S. vs The Housing And Urban Development on 10 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information