S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

This revision petition under Article 227 has been preferred by State Bank of India, Kotagiri Branch, against order dated 10th Sept., 2007, passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as DRAT) in M.A. No.40/2007. By the said order, DRAT dismissed the appeal affirming the order dated 17th Jan., 2007, passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, (hereinafter referred to as DRT).

.2. The case of the petitioner-Bank is that respondents 1 to 3, who are the partners of the firm, M/s.Sree Vari Corporation, initially obtained crop loan on 14th Dec., 1996. Subsequently, the partnership firm, through respondents 1 to 3, on 23rd Jan., 1998, also obtained loan to the tune of Rs.70 lakhs, Rs.20 lakhs towards cash credit and Rs.50 lakhs towards term loan. While taking such loan, properties at survey No.678 and 679 of Thekkampatti village were mortgaged. The original documents were deposited with the bank. Pursuant to one time settlement in respect of loan amount of Rs.70 lakhs, the borrower, partnership firm, paid a sum of Rs.74,34,485/= in full and final settlement of the loan account. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 3, who are the guarantors, requested the bank to return the documents of title in their favour. The bank refused to return the documents on the ground that the crop loan taken on 14th Dec., 1996, which was renewed twice, on 23rd Oct., 1997 and 5th Feb., 1997, have not been returned by respondents 1 to 3. DRT, Coimbatore, after hearing the parties, by its order dated 17th Jan., 2007, directed the bank to return those original mortgaged documents, which was affirmed by DRAT by impugned order dated 10th Sept., 2007.

.3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank submitted that by Mercantile System, the bank has a general lien over all forms of securities or negotiable instruments deposited by or on behalf of the customer in ordinary course of banking business. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decision in Syndicate Bank Vs Vijay Kumar & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 1066.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 referred to Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act and Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and submitted that the bank has no right by virtue of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act to exercise general lien over the properties mortgaged by respondents 1 to 3 in respect of the credit facility availed by the 4th respondent, partnership firm.

4. We have heard the parties, noticed the impugned order dated 10th Sept., 2007, passed by DRAT and the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1992 SC 1066 as referred to by counsel for the petitioner. We find that giving reference to Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act and Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Tribunal was of the view that after the total amount in respect of loan amount taken by 4th respondent, partnership firm having paid, the bank cannot exercise general lien over the properties mortgaged by respondents 1 to 3 in respect of such credit facility availed by the 4th respondent.

5. The question of bankers lien/general lien fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank Vs Vijay Kumar & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 1066. The provision of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was also noticed in the said case. Taking into consideration Halsburys Laws of England and provisions of the Contract Act in respect of bankers lien, the following observation was made by the Supreme court :-

"6. In Halsburys Laws of England, Vol. 20, 2nd Edn. p.552, para 695, lien is defined as follows :-

"Lien is in its primary sense is a right in one man to retain that which is in his possession belonging to another until certain demands of the person in possession are satisfied. In this primary sense it is given by law and not by contract."

In Chalmers on Bills of Exchange, thirteenth Edition page 91 the meaning of "Bankers lien" is given as fo