High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Sunanda Nagaraja vs Lic Housing Finance Ltd on 31 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Sunanda Nagaraja vs Lic Housing Finance Ltd on 31 July, 2008
Author: Anand Byrareddy
 

'F! AMGAI IDH E

DATED THIS THE 17* DAY op     

 

1.  '_  . 
60 '_-,-'§!l_1';l.---, Wig 'i'g,!i.,. 151'2.!g9;gjg    VA '- ..

  

. n ."....r3.I."'.l.r..Q. .Q.i~.\.1... 4': I n
;. in nu. 4913'

~ '~»'""'_"'"!-.'

'It - _...' .';..

 Bmgplgrb-560 021  PETITIONERS

_ A '   %%«¢(*aya%mi. :3. Bhai, Advocate)

% % ' 1. we H-.:.=u..-_i.-rg Fi_r;;::1ge 

Area Omen. t3_:_ound Floor
Bank ofiou, 1" Floor

(3%



15:1. Hayes Centre
Bangalom-560 O25
Ra-fix-eaar.4-ed .._,

P.AmaI»-1ar1a3er

m"--*:m. Sn-"frua 1*-33$", SQ *='-ea.-3  _

§~3

"WiaLaIaeB.N.Pra|s:aah    

1* Floor. 3*" Main ordm ¢atea%2:t;%1.2::os T 

Bmaatora-56$ $23   
(sum. FL. Rajagapal,  ..:11t'1vNo.2 --- hold

This want is.  fisriicie 2:26  22*:
at' me  £31'-E'  the rupcndent
LIC to  in roupent of rosidnnflal
P1'°P°1'1Y 1'9fi1'1fliiv,N9$-- 195':-9'" Elfin. Gawain 1'-EYOIJT.
Behii" 'v'i;'%*5-73% P%7EE»1f'Q§33lO.'£'-.5'5L' 928 m mpg: gf

Which;i31§_pO'li'li-mail am having valid documenll and the

 % "  omiveymi through the court oflaw.

   T.  oom1:ng' on for p:ehrmmry' ' _heau:g'

in'E'»i3rdi:;"§ this day, the Courtmade the following: -

~n._._1: -'.._.__ I'_'I'...._'_..... nu-u_
D ..

 a  peaitiancaoming on for x-mnrnimny numng, ;,

   is eonsidmed for final disposal. having ragard to

9»  Q-.e*.':-.e*..! £|.!I.t.1-nirm1mnI:In 3;.



-2,7

2. one B.1~I.Pr-alzash. who had executed an agreement

 30.3.2004, for sale of promty in fivour 9f

.1.

petitimem. whereby he   to Hi me   

the petitioners, died on 14.7.2004   K V' V

an {urn um: 'l"h9. ~nn1'~l'I'l%ngf!I fl  a  ..,_" 

IIIHIV I71'!-' IR!"-LID: cl-I-IJV r'V"IIIl- A -III Aqlirr rDT£.'|_{U'CC'f'IV In my

O.S.Nu.7T15!2D04 to enforce 

was a failure on the    the

-...-..-...=-.s.-.-..-.-.--;...-:...-.. The-m.-.='.  2-..~.-.-a..-..-.,:    dz.-..-;.-g the
pendency af {thee    were brought
an re~cmxc1"i;fl  as Va:-firaserttativea. The suit

was decreed m fa:vfi§3:'e'effie----  ex-paw Th'

pefifiezvgeerq,   .'.  execution of the decree and

f.«..e:V!'.~....r.!a-.=.I1t.:V.=.i 1.i.~.m~.ei.11., 11.-1.4 .1.'§.|W....l.L11¢lJ ex-pam, 1;L1e

 male deed on 21.11.2001 and was

  '  It was later learnt that the said

 ._ " East'; plflgrfi fir .'e:i3'-i:'.a1 fifie fie-en: ,-351*'-...."&:'g

if

   property with the respondent herein namely Min. LIC

” :’ I-Iouaing Fimnee Limited. Hence, the petitioner: had

A.I…_!_…

approaeheci the resporuierti to reiease fieefifinerfii ii men

3

re–.

mom and that if there were any amounts mmtmmdhm. it

m_11.:.l_d ha ggttlgsl by the petizlimem, as per

repwsmmtim dated :24.§.:?.0CI?. The reaponcionf. _ V

raply, ammma that tho fifle dead: ” %

mpreuntafives of the deceaIad’,””L’L*=.a:§ia71§:
tumu on which and: réiofinad in
fir ‘fir -if fl” lit ‘-‘-…..,,.”‘”‘-.’.-.3.’-.1′.

that tlm and me above

3. ‘I;!1;u:.{;3-V_V%’_-291%’ would submit that

– been mceeaufiai in the civii Iuii:

a decree and registration of the 1111: in

IE.

r-‘pa: L-f.§;’~fi’-§=- ’15.-warty, 2-.1-e e..-.*.i..e:1 *.r.:- La: 9.1.-igI.’. ti..-

%w1{ic11 are admittedly in the custody of the

and the renpondem_ withholding the same in

41. _..,..B ‘-1-; AIJAAH A!-Q

unlawful and murcniffi. sinus» in uuwuuu w ‘.115

respondent to handovar the title deeds.

935

….:1r.!. be »

4. Thu reapondonthaving cmtmd appearance through

,_ ,__, J

Cmmsal. it is contended by the Camel for the

t11ati:iw respcnmont was not a party to the aiiaaeci ‘A

petitioner and hence is not c§f’ii1e4c1zv’u:!II4’ _ ‘

wfiinh damn misfit have him: is

“VII-IvU’I-I. W gnaw» Julitilv
wmtertfim of the respondent ‘die

advanced a loan to for

….-_.. …._ -3′ .1… …….’ ‘,,_1. ‘ =…: ‘. ” . —- In –
pmuiiaw UI. I.-ll. ‘.~;’u»t_ N?.,i95, 3 h”””–u”.

road, and that the
by deposit of the

……..!-._-.I –

tltie dam. p had Human’ on 3

EE

1nnura:r’ ;.ca__ fiflhfiiilateral’ aacutity for ‘the loan, me

,|.@’lIw’4f\rJ.flp.CU’ M! GI!!!’ 1–vw wr-u-nu

res-_……1*¥§I. 1.1:.-a pammdn cf Q1- lira i11.sI_1:e..n-

the loan account. Howwar, the

ache policy were in excess in a sum of

“””-a”-..*’=’fi”-“””-.’!:.’.’.t.n’.”.’.e

” nmly the widow of B.N.Prakaah. tfrlaugh aha

p wanaviaed to collect this axnotmt, Ihe has failed to do an.

patiiimezr and since the respomdentt would hardly be

ind.emni.fied by handing over the documents to the _V

“”:’i’s’ii’II’i9’i’, ‘*1 ma ah-ma.-we sf sash 1*-.9-..’a…..*”-*3 wggr _

ta-comxiued in any pro-ceedmgu’ , the :§ap9nduIL,, é K: k ”
mince it is tho widow : V.i.

ernlitieai to a remtn of tin: an is Vifn§”1w:mm.*9’*’*’

ofthe excess amount

II-

…..e ix-.sI.’~:::I.ee p….i£:§,r It in
this baclzgrotm % in comma it

cannat as in law,

fa » 5; the patitimer was directed to

of late B.N.Pr.l1ta:h as 3 party to the

” Aooardingiy, notice

the numice by way of paper publication was held

” H1111-Hflnianf am-I’.|~ImI:
TV!

” will nluauauvur um. 11;.

5. Since 5mt.Seefl1a Nadig, widow of E.N.P:f:k

mnmulw iluam umpw VJ. unvn u

I-

I-

.2
ll

present petition is disposed of even; ”

ghove oimumntanoea having

;.-.1 L _1′”_”_’_.s_

rupotmiem’ in to haudovegjm
which are admittedly in to

t..e pm’-lmm.. I:1.I:s2.fi.I-3 an; _”f :{:;’;5*}*;,22fl!- whisk;

§’

mpmda1t§L9;1im::_::’;:’Mu_’ ._ widow of 31111

W

%%}.%j[%’rhe%:upm tin amen’ am

.._….-t flmuu soul in’: uylul-var

E}.

in fi.u’th_a: dawn’ 2 ‘% same in a Fixed Deposit for

I’! EI___A. E’_..al….. ‘.’I’_ .i:_.
1′

of this arm. mama acng

Vi 1:e% or1fiflod to the same. The mpondmt shall

= grim :1-i_. ti1’,_re¢.:_ti:.1_n at uty rate within 3

of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified

.5

111”

The pctitim mm» ‘ dispose” d ofin fun above wrnu’ .