The jurisdiction of the court under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act is procedural and ministerial, not to adjudicate disputes on merits, which must be resolved in a properly instituted civil suit.

ORDER :

1. The challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the Munsiff’s Court, Koyilandy, allowing a petition filed under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, directing the petitioners/respondents to receive a sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest and expenses and release the title deed in respect of an immovable property stated to have been mortgaged with the petitioners.

2. The respondent filed the Original Petition and pleaded as follows:-

He is the owner of the landed property comprised in Re-Survey No.46/128 of Kunnathara Village of Koyilandy Taluk. He acquired the said property by virtue of document No.3062/2003 of SRO Chemanchery. He had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioners on 21.12.2012 for his business purpose. At the time of borrowal, the immovable property referred to above was offered as security and mortgage deed No.3758/2012 of SRO Chemanchery was registered. The respondent wants to assign the property to a stranger. He approached the petitioners to pay that debt and to get back the title deed. The petitioners did not accede to his request.

3. The respondent filed the Original Petition under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act seeking a direction to the petitioners to receive the amount due with interest and expenses and release the title deed.

4. The petitioners pleaded the following:-

The petitioners had no knowledge regarding the ownership of the property. The respondent did not borrow the sum of Rs.25,000/- from its Koyilandy Branch either on 21.12.2012 or on any other date mortgaging his property. He did not deposit the title deed referred to in the petition concerning any financial transaction. Petitioner No.2 has no idea about the mortgage deed. The petitioner company is engaged in chit business. It has more than 100 branches in Kerala. On enquiry, it is understood that the respondent had transactions with the Kalpetta branch of the petitioner company. A huge amount is due from the respondent to the Kalpetta branch of the petitioner company. Apart from the transaction referred to in the Original Petition, as per mortgage deed No.3758/2012, other charges also have been created on the property in connection with various transactions done by the respondent with the Kalpetta branch of the petitioner’s company. The petitioners are not in a position to produce the original title deed. The Branch Manager of the Kalpetta branch is a necessary party.

5. The trial Court raised the following points:-

The trial Court proceeded with the matter based on the rival contentions. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the respondent. Petitioner No.2 gave evidence as RW1.

6. The trial Court came to the following conclusions:-

The respondent was ready and willing to redeem the mortgage and the petitioners were not prepared to accept the mortgage money and return the title deed. Based on this finding, the trial Court directed the petitioners to receive a sum of Rs.25,000/- and release the title deed to the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners made the following arguments:-

(1) The learned Munsiff ought to have found that a proceeding under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act is only procedural and ministerial in character, and therefore, the Court had jurisdiction only to record the deposit and close the Original Petition and in case of contest,